Saturday letters
The Virginia Senate and guns in today’s letters to the editor.
Pick of the day: Gun control flexibility is the right course
I have many friends in the National Rifle Association and do not wish to offend them, but to be flexible on the issue of automatic weapons and clips of more than 10 rounds is not only reasonable, but the right thing to do.
I was a member of the NRA before it went from a hunting organization to more of a firearms, gun show, gun trade and political organization. I have talked to friends in the NRA, but I do not buy the argument that what our president is asking is “only a foot in the door” thing.
Automatic weapons are not just a collector problem. Why protect a small percentage of collectors at the expense of mass killing, drug traffickers and millions spent to protect our children and our very social structure?
It is high time we stop playing politics with this. It is too important to us all. I do not want to give up my guns due to a no-compromise attitude and a pledge signed by well-meaning, but certainly shortsighted, decent folks who represent the citizens. I would rather be reasonable about this proposal than let it escalate into an all-or-nothing war where nobody wins.
ROBERT WAID
FINCASTLE
January 26, 2013 - 7:48 AM
I agree with your take on this Mr. wade. I love guns, but do not have any assault type weapons. I used them in the army and I am quite familiar with their capabilities. There must be some compromise her.. even if it saves one life. The NRA has mislead their members terribly. Just open up any one of their magazines and the first thing you see is.. political rhetoric, and hetred for this administration. I cancelled my membership when they called George Bush sr.’s administration ‘jack booted thugs’ . Who is acting like that now? The NRA comes to mind.
DEAR PAULA DOSS (“We have a right to protect ourselves”):
You might be interested in a story from the Associate Press: “Military-style rifles, gangster-style Tommy guns, World War II-era bazookas and even sawed-off shotguns — somewhere in the U.S., there is a legal avenue to get each of those firearms and more. This is thanks to the maze of gun statutes around the country and the lack of a minimum federal standard to raise the bar for gun control in states with weak laws.”
Do that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
Of COURSE you have a right to protect yourself and your family and property. Question is, do you need a machine gun or a bazooka to do so? Do you think the 2nd Amendment is so absolute and sacrosanct that you have the right to own an arsenal of as MANY weapons you want, of whatever KIND you want?
If the answer is YES, then I guess we may as well get used to the massacres in schools and movie theaters and churches, because it’s the price we have to pay to indulge gun enthusiasts in their little hobby.
2 – “…do you need a machine gun or a bazooka to do so?”
I assume this is asked rhetorically, and that you expect the answer to be ‘No’, that Ms. Doss does NOT need a bazooka, sawed-off, etc. to protect herself.
That is a value judgement; need in this context is synonymous with value. What you are saying is that YOU do not need (value) such to defend yourself. That’s all well and good, but you cannot project that value onto Ms. Doss or anyone else. Just as you cannot project the need/value for anything – car, baseball bat, butcher knife, kiwi fruit, squeegee, dog…anything – onto anyone else based simply on how you value it.
If self-defense and home protection is truly what concerns you, try asking Ms. Doss (or anyone else) why she feels safer with the defense they have chosen; work to develop another less scary (for you) means of self-defense that would make her feel safer. It may be that you can both arrive at a solution that satisfies your need for safe self-defense (for lack of a better term) and her need for protection.
But belittling her values based on your own is not a solution.
Regards to the 2nd Amendment, no, there are no limitations. In fact, if the Militia Act of 1792 provided any sort of guide (as some insists it does), we would be insisting everyone be armed with at least an M-16, grenade launchers and a few tanks here and there.
Re: Ms. Doss’ plea on the behalf of gun lovers…no proposal has ever been made to disarm people or leave them totally defenseless. The issue at hand is why it would take an AR15, AK47, or any other semi- or automatic weapon to defend ones home. What the hell do people think is coming to get them?
Cathy, just because YOU see no value in such weapons doesn’t mean others can not. There is no way for you oranyone else to know how or why Ms. Doss or anyone else values anything.
4…Cathy the answer to your question is a simple one. AR15′s are effective for self defense. I have one and will purchase a second one soon. If you feel differently, then don’t obtain one.
Why only as about “need” relative to firearms?
As I have posted before, on Roanoke Times blogs:
What does “need” have to do with the American way?
Do we “need”:
o Cars that can exceed the speed limit, sometimes more than twice the max speed limit?
o SUV & trucks that can haul or tow far more than some owners will ever haul or tow, again often well above the speed limit?
o More vehicles registered to private owners than there are licensed drivers?
o The square footage of the average new single-family detached home?
o Theater sized TVs in those homes?
o Cell phones for instant gratification – especially while driving?
o All the rest of the high tech devices to provide instant gratification – excuse me, connectivity / communication?
o Devices w/ 4G connections, when many consumers would not recognize 4G even if 4G hit him or her in face?
o To be answering those devices in restaurants, churches, and all sort of public places?
o A plethora of fast food chains and local joints serving far more salt, fat and calories in a meal than a body needs in a day?
o 32 oz sodas?
o Store shelf after store shelf and freezers full of high-salt, high-fat, high-caloric, caffeine added, adulterated foods?
o Store shelves stacked with beer after beer brand, including many from around the world?
o Bin after bin of fresh out-of-season and non-local produce flown in from around the world?
o A fishing pole unless to catch fish for food in order to survive?
o Fire extinguishers — as they are difficult to use in an emergency? (Why not just call the fire department. They can get there as quick as an LEO. When seconds count what are a few minutes, anyway?)
o A first aid kit? (Shouldn’t injuries be tended to by a professional and the ambulance can get there as quick as an LEO. If that’s quick enough to stop a crime, why not for injuries?)
Once we as a society actually function on the bases of “need”, I’ll consider “need” relative to the availability of a gun or guns. In the meantime, I’ll work on the same level of “want” not “need” that we-as-a-society operate on — across the board.
OTOH, quit demanding someone prove “need” for something you dislike while ignoring such a requirement for those things you like/want.
Re: my last
1st line should have been, “Why only
as[ask] about “need” relative to firearms?”Sorry about the proofo.
Some here should read:
http://www.csoc.org/ppdocs/GunControlLegislation.pdf
My money is on President Obama says the sky is blue and for the life of her, Paula Doss would have trouble seeing that.
Why the need to pretend taking the most viciously dangerous guns out of circulation is taking away your defense? Is it just dishonesty or is there something else at play?
Your “need” is not the issue here and frankly I am not sure it was when the Constitution was written, but it certainly is not the criteria on which our nation bases its laws.
You can no more guarantee that removing these machismo laden “man-card” guns will harm you in any way than you can guarantee that their removal will do nothing to prevent future shootings with them. Under no scenario are we obligated to be sure no law interferes with what you want.
#10 – “Under no scenario are we obligated to be sure no law interferes with what you want.”
It’s not what we want, Sandi, it’s what the Constitution guarantees us. And as an American, you should feel an obligation to uphold the Constitution.
Sadly, as a Liberal, you probably feel no such thing.
Speaking of the Constitution, someone should put the Constitution on a teleprompter…Obama might actually read it.
#4 – “The issue at hand is why it would take an AR15, AK47, or any other semi- or automatic weapon to defend ones home.”
You don’t think an AR-15 is necessary for home defense, Cathy. It would seem, however, that the Department of Homeland Security thinks otherwise.
http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/01/27/if-assault-weapons-are-badwhy-does-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/
“Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”
Re: Michael @ 5:36 pm
What I’d like to see Cathy Bittler answer is, “The issue at hand is why it would take a Knife, fork and spoon in ones home, when they could ead dinner with a spork?”
See: http://tinyurl.com/bbtjqkn
.
.
How could it be that 2011 State Police reports that only one “assault rifle” death — ruled a homicide — was recorded statewide for that year?
Sounds as if some folk are way off base as to the scope of the alleged problem.
See: http://tinyurl.com/ajrbxx8
#14 – “Sounds as if some folk are way off base as to the scope of the alleged problem.”
Of course they are, Dave. Then again, it’s pretty easy to be ignorant of the facts when Diane Feinstein goes on the Sunday news shows and lies over and over again.
15 – I’m sure it’s a simple oversight that Feinstein’s bill exempts lawmakers. The good senator can keep her “assault rifle”. All animals are equal but some pigs are more equal than others.
Michael, it is absolutely what you want, There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees anyone a precise item they want from any manufacturer. That is simply not there. If “as an American”, you feel I owe you support for an obligation not in in the Constitution, you are dreaming.
As an intelligent person, I support the Constitutional right to bear arms under the context of state militia and personal safety. I do not support the right to have any arms you like. Never have, never will.
No teleprompter can add to the Constitution what is not there and your right to a military style assault rifle and a 30 round magazine are not in there.
17 – yes, it is what you want, what you value. So the response to “Why does anyone need (value, want, etc) ‘X’” lies strictly with the individual. No, the Constitution does not guarantee you ‘X’, but it DOES specifically guarantee that your ability to acquire ‘X’ shall not be infringed. It limits the power of the government, not the individual.
We are not remotely “way off base as to the scope of the alleged problem”. There is a machismo and a hype to this weapon that others do not have (thankfully). From video games to tactical reality games, this weapon is macho man material and sought out by the likes of mass shooters often enough to warrant at minimum to be a Class III dealer controlled weapon IMO.
“The guns of Columbine were old and new. They were manufactured in three states, promoted by catalog and telemarketer, sold at small gun stores and large gun shows. But in the end, all four were sold anonymously to teenagers, no questions asked, no background checks, no purchase forms, no signatures.
Klebold’s TEC-DC9 was a heavy, awkward handgun built to fire dozens of bullets in seconds, advertised as fingerprint-resistant and sold, according to one criminal-justice expert, to people with a remarkable propensity for killing.”
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/shot0801.htm
I am troubled that the main concern of gun advocates is never the safety of anyone else on the planet. You don’t live in a vacuum and you are not superman.
“To Believers, guns have become fetish objects in American popular culture, having magical potency. Witness Bushmaster Firearms’ advertising its .223 caliber AR-15—Newtown killer Adam Lanza’s weapon—with the slogan: “Consider your Man Card reissued.”
http://www.nationalmemo.com/newtown-truthers-follow-the-nras-playbook/
Or that your armchair instincts will be sufficient?
“…the research on actual gunfights, the kind that happen not in a politician’s head but in fluorescent-lit stairwells and strip-mall restaurants around America, reveals something surprising. Winning a gunfight without shooting innocent people typically requires realistic, expensive training and a special kind of person, a fact that has been strangely absent in all the back-and-forth about assault-weapon bans and the Second Amendment.”
http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/16/your-brain-in-a-shootout-guns-fear-and-flawed-instincts/
“A .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and two handguns were recovered at the scene in Newtown, Conn.,
James Holmes reportedly used a .223-caliber rifle in the theater shooting in Aurora, Colo.
a .223-caliber Bushmaster was used in the Washington, D.C., sniper shootings
Thirteen of those weapons were recovered in crimes in Chicago within a year of their purchase between 2008 and 2010“.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/17017680-418/assault-rifle-used-in-conn-shooting-seen-on-chicago-streets.html
Society has a legitimate gripe with these weapons. No, banning or re-classifying them will not solve all the gun problems but it will go a long way in solving one of them.
Re: Michael — January 27, 2013 @ 8:36 pm
Yup.
Check out: http://tinyurl.com/a7yc66y
Not out of there, either.
And the truth is spreading:
http://tinyurl.com/a4yszc2
**
Firearm-related homicides, injuries decline in Virginia
The Associated Press
8:33 a.m. EST, January 28, 2013
RICHMOND, Va. (AP)—
State figures show firearm-related homicides and injuries are declining in Virginia.
Figures from the state’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner show firearms-related homicides fell 32 percent, from 357 in 2005 to 242 in 2011.
Virginia Department of Health figures show firearm-related injuries requiring hospitalization declined 28 percent, from 392 to 283, during the same period.
SNIP
Forensic epidemiologist Dr. Anna Noller says one of the staff’s pathologists thought assault rifles were different enough that they should be placed in a separate category.
The report lists one assault rifle homicide in 2011.
[Emphasis added]
**
#19 – “I am troubled that the main concern of gun advocates is never the safety of anyone else on the planet.”
And that is one more thing you are wrong about.
Gun advocates are very concerned about safety. But why should you let that stop you from spreading falsehoods?
The Constitution may respect the rights of the individual barring certain conditions, but our laws never really have and they cannot when the public safety is involved. We have laws that society deems appropriate and the consideration for anyone wanting or valuing a particular purchase is not guaranteed by either.
23 – I agree.
Oh yes, you are all very, very concerned about your own safety and fight to keep every means of defense even if they are not good for society. That is a very self-serving and self-righteous concern for your personal safety but shows little regard for anyone else’s IMO. That you claim I am wrong notwithstanding.
I like a sign I once read that said something like, “When one child throws rocks at the others, you don’t solve the problem by giving all the kids rocks!”
I realize adult gun owners aren’t children but it’s a generally applicable principle.
326 – “Oh yes, you are all very, very concerned about your own safety and fight to keep every means of defense even if they are not good for society.”
Sigh…wrong again, Sandi.
Gun advocates are very concerned about everyone’s safety.
You really should quit while you’re behind.
#27 – “When one child throws rocks at the others, you don’t solve the problem by giving all the kids rocks!”
Is that how you see it, Scott? That, as gun owners, we want to give everyone a gun?
Wow…talk about not understanding.
People confuse (whether accidentally or deliberately) the terms “automatic” and “semi-automatic” with regard to firearms so much that it makes my head hurt. Of course, the media doesn’t help.
Those of you who are so against guns, and believe the rhetoric from the media need to find a way to take a class, or have someone reputable introduce you to safe firearms use. You might even find it an enjoyable hobby.
I cannot adequately express my appreciation for the concern shown for my lack of intelligence, knowledge and insight on what you have all so obviously grasped and display, so I will not even try.
I do not believe anyone is confusing automatic with semi-automatic, mainly because there is not a world of difference in reference to these rapid fire military styled assault rifles we are discussing. No one thinks they are “machine guns” but everyone has the right to believe they are dangerous.
For the record, I personally consider an assault weapon in the context of this gun control to be a semi-automatic rifle that has the “military style” to it, has a detachable magazine that can hold 12 or more bullets, a folding stock which makes it easier to hide, a “pistol style” grip, and the capacity for a bayonet mount or “flash suppressor”. I consider them closer to a weapon of terror than of function.
I do not believe that gun advocates are about the safety of others, if you believe that to be the case, you are free to do so. That you claim to fight for “rights” does not necessarily convey to the reality of the situation.
“I”, “me” and “mine” are the most often used words from gun advocates from my perspective. It does not matter how many mass shootings are performed with these weapons. It does not matter the machismo the gun culture has allowed to embed the advertising, and use of these weapons. It does not matter that the terror tactic of such a weapon is their greatest attraction for these mass shooters, drug cartels, tactical training patriots, gun rights enthusiasts (not all of whom are so “law-abiding” and government supporting), or that banning them now is what many people in society think is for the best. No, I do not see your public safety conscience in this debate.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 9:52 am
Got it.
Some criminal broke the federal law (and I expect State law) by selling to teenagers.
And, in your opinion, that is the justification for yet another law for criminals to break and law-abiding citizen to follow, giving up freedom in the process?
Isn’t doing the same thing over and expecting different results an example of something or the other?
Re: Michael @ 11:26 am
Could it be that Scott M thinks irresponsible citizens are proposing the the goverment give away guns?
That free guns are an entitlement?
#31 – “Those of you who are so against guns, and believe the rhetoric from the media need to find a way to take a class, or have someone reputable introduce you to safe firearms use.”
A noble idea, Judy.
Unfortunately, educating themselves on actual facts would require some effort. It’s much easier to be a sheep and fall for the lies being told to them every day.
@30 Judy R., you say, “…have someone reputable introduce you to safe firearms use. You might even find it an enjoyable hobby.”
Speaking only for myself, I have guns and enjoy shooting them, but when I advocate gun control or eliminating them in general from society, I don’t mean to say we get rid of all guns entirely.
But it’s also important for those who are “pro-gun”, that they remember they can still have access to them without needing to keep their own.
What I mean is, as a hobby, I could go to the firing range and rent a gun for target shooting. I could join a skeet club, buy the pigeons there and rent the guns there. I could still enjoy my hobby of skeet shooting without the need to own a gun.
This could also be extended to hunters. There’s no reason we can’t have gun rental stores. Pass a background check, take a safety course, and rent a gun for a week of hunting. Return it at the end of the week.
That seems perfectly fine to me.
@29 Michael, I’m willing to accept I don’t understand your position and that I may be simply confused about it.
But I am under the impression ‘giving everyone guns’ is essentially what the NRA is about. Their answer, and please correct me where I’m wrong, to the Newtown tragedy was more guns.
#29 – He doesn’t want to give everyone a gun. He wants to ban rocks. Or children.
Oh please stop whining about “giving up freedom”. The “right” to own whatever arms you please, does not exist. It is a freedom you already do not have. There have been restrictions for over a century and for various reasons. We all give up freedom when society determines we should. The Patriot Act sealed that deal once and for all. If we can warrant-less wiretap and remotely spy, what is the problem with limiting the types of arms you can buy? Nothing.
#31 – “For the record, I personally consider an assault weapon in the context of this gun control to be a semi-automatic rifle that has the “military style” to it, has a detachable magazine that can hold 12 or more bullets, a folding stock which makes it easier to hide, a “pistol style” grip, and the capacity for a bayonet mount or “flash suppressor”.”
Yep…pretty much exactly the way they were defined in the previous AWB.
Without looking it up, I sincerely doubt if you have any idea what a flash supressor actually is. But since it sounds evil, and someone else tells you it is, that’s good enough, right?
The commissar has spoken. We have no freedoms. Haven’t in some time. Probably never did. Quit whining. Since we already have bad legislation, let’s compound it by passing more. It’s only symbolic anyway. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Voluntary is Mandatory. You will be assimilated. Quit whining.
I sincerely doubt that I care what you think I know about these guns or any other. You all claim my ignorance and nothing will dissuade you from thinking that. As for being a sheep, I would think someone so often on a misguided bandwagon would refrain from such an insult but I was apparently wrong.
89Hoo, if you want to mock me, please do so in the context I was speaking. It IS whining about losing freedom when we are speaking of banning some guns in a literal sea of guns, and you know it. Banning these weapons tomorrow leaves no one without more than adequate self-defense and plenty of guns to choose from. Calling me a “Communist party official” because you do not like my point is more than childish, BTW. Typical, but still childish.
Re: 89Hoo @ 2:12 pm
“Since we already have bad legislation, let’s compound it by passing more.”
——————
Well done. You nailed it.
#38 – “Oh please stop whining about “giving up freedom”.”
If it were the 1st Amendment under attack, I have no doubt whatsoever who would be doing some whining.
I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”. What made it amusing is that it was on a car plastered with Obama stickers.
Oh, the irony…
41 – as you wish, madam. As an aside, Senator Commissar Feinstein’s legislation will allow all commissars to keep their assault weapons while the rest of the proletariat surrenders theirs. Any thoughts on that?
Sandi was pretty close to the 1994 ban, except it was 10-rounds and collapsible stocks were included, which she did not list.
Basically, all of the scary sounding things are included. What this proposed ban does not include is anything related to *what* the gun shoots or how fast it can shoot it.
#33 “…Oh, the irony…”
5 Injured after firearms go off at Ohio, N.C., Indiana gun shows
By Michael Martinez and Greg Botelho, CNN
updated 5:32 AM EST, Mon January 21, 2013
“CNN) — At least five people — three in North Carolina, one in Indiana and one in Ohio — were injured after weapons went off at gun shows
Saturday, officials said, at a time when there’s been renewed discussion about private gun sales at such shows.”
#30 “Those of you who are so against guns, and believe the rhetoric from the media need to find a way to take a class, or have someone reputable introduce you to safe firearms use.”
Let’s not exclude gun show enthusiasts.
Re: Jack @ 3:01 pm
You are referring to the ban, which since it expired violent crime has dropped, right?
Re: 89Hoo @ 2:53 pm
Yup.
The first class citizens don’t want the 2nd class subjects to have the same rights.
Bring back memories of:
http://tinyurl.com/3yhgwj4
**
Jefferson changed ‘subjects’ to ‘citizens’ in Declaration of Independence
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 3, 2010
“Subjects.”
That’s what Thomas Jefferson first wrote in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence to describe the people of the 13 colonies.
But in a moment when history took a sharp turn, Jefferson sought quite methodically to expunge the word, to wipe it out of existence and write over it. Many words were crossed out and replaced in the draft, but only one was obliterated.
Over the smudge, Jefferson then wrote the word “citizens.”
SNIP
**
#45 – “Sandi was pretty close to the 1994 ban, except it was 10-rounds and collapsible stocks were included, which she did not list.”
You’re right, she said “folding”. I’m sure she meant “collapsible”, but forgot the actual name of the item she heard about.
#36 – “But I am under the impression ‘giving everyone guns’ is essentially what the NRA is about.”
You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried, Scott.
Do yourself a favor…stop listening to those who hate the NRA and do some actual research.
This is not “dissent”, and pretending the childish name calling and deliberate dishonesty used to argue for “giving up freedom” and “scary sounding things” much less “Since we already have bad legislation, let’s compound it by passing more” isn’t really just plain old garden variety whining and nothing more substantive at all is kidding only you.
Michael, I believe my track record on “free speech” abuse is well known, there would be no such whinging from me if this were a discussion on restricting parts of the First Amendment instead of the Second (or any other really). I am in favor of a society deciding the laws it needs at any given time on principle and certainly after having my own pleas about the Patriot Act be ignored, have little sympathy to offer anyone over spilled “freedoms”.
Jack, you do realize that if this ban is only about “scary sounding things” and is not substantive on any level, the outrage over the loss of “freedom” seems even more hollow than you claim the ban to be?
#51 – “This is not “dissent”…”
Like hell it’s not. The regime YOU support is trying to take away citizens rights and people are speaking out against it.
52 – nothing on lawmakers exempting themselves, Sandi?
You are referring to the ban, which since it expired violent crime has dropped, right?
Comment by Dave Hicks — January 28, 2013 @ 3:13 pm
Yes.
You’re right, she said “folding”. I’m sure she meant “collapsible”, but forgot the actual name of the item she heard about.
Comment by Michael — January 28, 2013 @ 3:25 pm
Right. But collapsible stocks and folding stocks are not the same thing and do not serve the same purpose.
Jack, you do realize that if this ban is only about “scary sounding things” and is not substantive on any level, the outrage over the loss of “freedom” seems even more hollow than you claim the ban to be?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 28, 2013 @ 3:54 pm
Doesn’t matter. I disagree with the idea of creating laws for the sake of creating laws. That is exactly what this is. It is about creating laws not to keep people safe, but to make naive people, such as yourself, feel safe.
As an aside, you do realize that a ban on collapsible stocks would only result in people buying more guns, right?
As someone whose patriotism, sanity and integrity was questioned every time I spoke against the Bush “regime”, no I find the claims of dissent to be just flat our funny in the context being offered here. Did you go this nuts over the Patriot Act? Did you write an LTE protesting that invasion of real freedom and real rights? Did you never call any of the protesters anything more than “dissenters”?
This is whining because an apparent toy is being threatened IMO. I see your arguments as false, too late or just plain wrong. Certainly this is not about rights, freedom or self-defense. That much is just not disputable.
Let’s keep it down to a dull roar, folks. Thanks.
56 – I stand with you on the excesses of the Bush administration, Sandi. Doesn’t make those of the current president any more or less palatable. The abuses of both men sink on their own merits.
Any thoughts on senator Feinstein exempting lawmakers from turning in their weapons?
Every Constitutional right we have has limitations and restrictions…there is no “free-for-all” right. That’s why the phrase we use to describe our system is “ordered liberty.” Why should the 2nd Amendment be immune? Of course there are and should be limitations and restrictions on gun ownership. It is common sense and The American Way.
I am not familiar with Feinstein’s bill as it has a snowball’s chance of passing. I would not exempt anyone.
I am not trying to imply that the Bush “excesses” are any excuse for Obama’s continuation of them. I am saying that I will never accept such criticism of Obama as legitimate after what I suffered for saying the same thing about Bush. It is not so much about the “excesses” (although they are egregious and apparently here to stay), it is more in line with what is respected as dissent. It is the old, if you cannot respect mine, do not expect it for yours. MANY of the people who are lambasting Obama were either silent or assured me that it only mattered if I had something to hide from 2001 on. Not knowing who is whom among those here now, I am tarring with a broad brush, just as they did. What goes around comes around. Obama is guilty of not closing the barn door, or restoring the “freedoms” lost, but he is not guilty of letting the freedoms get lost, and neither am I.
In addition to the Feinstein Biden moments already mentioned, yesterday on Face the Nation she said any semi-auto can be easily converted to full auto with cheap after-market parts….and that this is perfectly legal.
She also said, whan asked about “rights” that people have the right to “feel” safe in theatres, schools, malls, etc. Not be safe, but feel safe.
The pertinent question is, is she this stupid? Or does she only think we are? Academic to me.
I am not familiar with Feinstein’s bill as it has a snowball’s chance of passing. I would not exempt anyone.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 28, 2013 @ 6:00 pm
I’m glad that you agree with me that the Department of Homeland Security doesn’t need them, either… and heck, they even ordered fully automatic ones.
In addition to the Feinstein Biden moments already mentioned, yesterday on Face the Nation she said any semi-auto can be easily converted to full auto with cheap after-market parts….and that this is perfectly legal.
Comment by Jim Lucas — January 28, 2013 @ 6:13 pm
This is not true. It is true that they can be converted, but it is absolutely not legal. In fact, the part itself is wholly illegal without any other gun part.
Here is a picture of what such a part looks like: http://i.imgur.com/BVcpxbH.jpg
The part itself is defined by the ATF as a machine gun (kind of silly, I know), but it is illegal. if you had this part in the front pocket of your pants, even if you are miles from any actual gun, you would be very guilty of a very serious crime.
Feinstein also said that police have broken into gunshops in order to obtain weapons equal to those being used by criminals.
This has never happened and is a blatant lie…yet she gets away with it.
No, Jim, Feinstein is not stupid. But she’s counting on those who follow her to be.
Yes those who “follow” Feinstein are doubtless a lot “stupider” than those who “follow” the NRA. Obviously we do not agree on what “stupid” is either. What part of your argument is enhanced by calling people names?
Could we possibly be tired of the gun culture making excuses for why we can do nothing to keep these guns out of the wrong hands and why we need to live with them in any private hands? Could the deaths of these children matter enough to risk your ire and derision?
Jack, you may believe I agree with you, but I do not. The question asked about exempting lawmakers, not law enforcement.
Here’s a link to Feinstein’s proposed bill,
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
#60 – “I am not familiar with Feinstein’s bill…”
I find that very hard to believe.
Too bad the Bush/Cheney lies were not nearly as easy for you all to call out as Feinstein’s supposed lies.
It pains me that you find anything hard to believe Michael. It remains the truth, I have not read the bill and have only heard what other bloggers have commented about it. I do not believe it has a chance of passing and see no need to waste my time pondering it.
@ #64, no, it was not “a blatant lie” and it did happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
“Several officers also appropriated AR-15 rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the need for patrol officers to upgrade their capabilities in similar situations in the future.“
Jack and Jim Lucas, she did not say the conversion was “perfectly legal” she said the part to do it was. Is that not the truth?
Here’s a dandy you’ll likely be reading about in tomorrow’s RT. I could not find it in the paper today, but I didn’t look very hard.
“On Sunday, an unidentified 22-year-old man carried a loaded AR-15 into the Kroger store on Emmet Street and Hydraulic Road, sparking not only a scare for customers and employees but also a 2nd Amendment debate.
Charlottesville police drew their guns on the man after witnesses reported he brought a gun into the store. They restrained the man to ask him questions, but released him after they confirmed he is not a convicted felon, owned the gun legally and it was not concealed.
Police say he was cooperative and did nothing illegal. Officers did find a note in his pocket spelling out his intent to express his 2nd Amendment rights.”
http://www.nbc29.com/story/20755619/kroger-gun-stunt-sparks-2nd-amendment-debate
#60 Mrs. Saunders, not saying that I agree with everything Bush did (I don’t)….are you equating the war on terrorism post 9/11 with depriving American citizens of their Constitutional rights?
#62 And several local police for school security.
#67 I find it very easy to believe. The meat & merit do not matter. All that matters is the attempt to strike while the children are dead.
The attempt to push the agenda.
I believe many, many people are “equating the war on terrorism post 9/11 with depriving American citizens of their Constitutional rights” That was the beginning of the end for many rights and privacy for citizens. It was the last straw. No gun can protect any of us from it either.
#71 In all honesty Mrs. Saunders…not sure. Erased the show, will try to find.
But, I don’t think so…and am not sure of the value of the distiction.
So was the gun buying frenzy after Newtown, an “attempt to strike while the children are dead” too?
and what we have now is a slide stock (?), it’s perfectly legal & makes the gun fully automatic.
Parse as you wish.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57566173/assault-weapons-ban-faces-uphill-battle-says-author-feinstein/
I am not the one who is parsing her words.
#70 – “#64, no, it was not “a blatant lie” and it did happen.”
Actually, Sandi, what Feinstein said happened in fact did not.
She said officers had to break into a gun store. In actuality, the store was open for business, so no officers had to break into it.
Hence, it was a lie on her part and you believe her.
#79 – Jim, what she actually said was, “It’s legal. And it makes the gun act fully automatic.”
Keyword: “Act”. The slide stock does not make the gun fully automatic.
All the slide stock does is make it easier to pull the trigger faster. The rifle still only fires one round per trigger pull.
It’s bad enough that the Libs and gungrabbers have their facts wrong and lie and deceive to make their point. Let’s not do the same.
At what point does “attention to detail” become “parsing”?
The question for me – a non-gun guy: what is the distinction (if any) between sliding, folding and slide stocks? Do any of those transform a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic rifle (meaning it’s more than just the stock that is different)?
70, 81 – this strikes me as odd. That Feinstein would offer a de facto defense (they “had to to break in”) of an illegal act; i.e., a defense of criminals (those breaking in) on the justification that were fighting crime.
It turns out, as Michael said, that they bought them in a legal transaction…so why the lie, and why the defense of the criminal acts?
Who are the criminals in the story?
All you have is parsing her words, her points are valid and the issue is worthy of consideration. That you do not like it makes you pounce. A politician using hyperbole is par for the course, as it is around here too. A person not using the precise nomenclature for guns and ammo is also a red-herring to deflect the point and not have to admit the issue is of concern.
http://blogs.roanoke.com/politics/2013/01/28/roanoke-college-poll-looks-at-what-virginians-think-about-guns/
85 – what issue is valid? That police have to break in to get weapons (or not) and become criminals themselves (and if anyone believes that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I will happily sell you)? That’s worthy of consideration? Did Senator Feinstein ever provide a clarification?
82 – okay, then, what did she mean when she said a legal folding stock makes the gun act fully automatic?
As an aside, it’s a bit hypocritical that liberals pore over dictionary and legal term they can find to parse “well-regulated militia” but get upset over a call for clarification from a lawmaker.
#85 – “All you have is parsing her words, her points are valid and the issue is worthy of consideration.”
No one is parsing her words at all, Sandi. What she said is factually incorrect and bringing it to light is a very valid point.
You demand facts all the time. Now here’s a fact presented to you and it’s “parsing her words”.
What she said is a lie. You refuse to accept it when it’s proven to you.
Funny how that works.
#83 – “Do any of those transform a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic rifle (meaning it’s more than just the stock that is different)?”
No, Hoo, they do not. A collapsible stock is simply an adjustable stock that allow the weapon to be used by different people. A folding stock folds to make the weapon less bulking. A slide stock uses the weapons own recoil to allow the user to pull the trigger faster.
None of them make the weapon fully automatic. That would be illegal.
Parsing is “attention to detail” and then some. It is defined as “to examine in a minute way: analyze critically“.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parsing
Pulling apart her remarks to find fault and flaws is the point as opposed to discussing the issue and the merits of the legislation. That is parsing not merely attention to detail.
The spoken word in an interview is among the least effective forms of communication and taking sentences apart and using them to defeat the person instead of the point is a favored pastime for us all, but it remains what it is. Parsing not discussing.
@ #84, the point of her comment was that the cops found themselves outgunned and out armored and had to scramble for effective firepower to control the situation. That is a dangerous and still likely scenario on any stop or call they get with the proliferation of such high powered guns, ammo and armor available to the public. Not to mention the proliferation of anti-government sentiment. It is not at all hard to grasp, if you want to, that is.
“52 – nothing on lawmakers exempting themselves, Sandi?
Comment by 89Hoo — January 28, 2013 @ 4:10 pm”
What about this “lie”? Is spreading misinformation not a lie?
All this knashing of teeth and swirling of words from the posts that I have read above really haven’t solved and won’t solve the problem at hand: little kids and some adults were killed in CT by a person who had no business having access to weapons of any description shape or form. At some point in the future, little kids and adults are going to be killed by a person or persons who have no business having access to weapons of any description shape or form because of a variety of conditions taken singularly or collectively as a reason for their destructive behavior.
All the hand wringing and blustering about banning this type or that type of weapon from the general public isn’t going to stop that person from acting on their destructive behavior. If not a gun, it will be a bomb; if not a bomb, it will be a car; etc. There are literally thousands of ways that someone intent on doing bodily harm can complete their desired task. Guns are but one way.
You can arm everyone in school, shopping malls, movie theatres, bars, fast food restaurants and every other place that people tend to gather in mass. If someone is going to do harm, the ordinary citizen armed with his/her weapon of choice isn’t going to have the time or the mental conditioning to be able to prevent much, if any, carnage as a result of their “freedom” to carry a weapon. Unless they have been specifically trained to react under such circumstances, they will probably end up being one of the victims just as quickly as the unarmed people within the same group.
The element of surprise is always going to be on the side of the executioner…not the other way around.
Frankly, I don’t really give a rip whether you have a single shot rifle or a sub-machine gun…all this nonsense about your “right to bear arms” in order to protect you from your government won’t make a tinker’s damn if you’re staring back at the end of a tank gun. That’s simply hysteria at its worst.
I’ve yet to hear any serious discussion about why people are demonstrating the destructive behavior that they do. I’ve heard a few pathetic attempts to blame it on single parents, working parents, no school prayer and a few others but is anyone really trying to focus on the cause?
I am convinced that if all we do is to simply adhere to the suggestions (and I use that word lightly) posted by many of you above, the end result is going to be the same:
Little children and adults are going to die at the hands of people who have destructive behavioral tendencies without regard to the mechanism used to carry out the process.
89 – that’s what I thought. Making it full auto would require more than simply changing the stock.
91 – it’s ridiculous, except to the ridiculous.
#90 – “Pulling apart her remarks to find fault and flaws is the point as opposed to discussing the issue and the merits of the legislation.”
No one is pulling her remarks apart. She lied to embolden her point…and that’s a fact you refuse to face.
“It is not at all hard to grasp, if you want to, that is.”
Like admitting she lied, right?
Always with the insults! I am not “ridiculous” because I will not accept your party line unless you are “ridiculous” for doing so. She may have misspoken, she may have used rhetoric and hyperbole (like we all do) but the fact remains that it is only a “lie” in the most strict and resentful sense. Naturally that works for you in this instance. Funny how you run from it when it does not work so well for you.
@89 Michael, it’s a bit disingenuous to say a slide stock doesn’t make a gun fully automatic. I’ve seen them on youtube and it’s so close to fully automatic there is essentially no difference. The difference can only be described as to the definition. If you define ‘fully automatic’ by the mechanism it’s achieved, then yes you can ‘define’ it away.
But if you were to define it say by rate of fire, a slide stock should be considered fully automatic.
92 – from the Huffington Post, a bastion of right-wing propaganda (emphasis mine):
“…the bill includes a number of exemptions: It exempts more than 2,200 hunting and sporting weapons; any gun manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; any weapons used by government officials and law enforcement; and any weapons legally owned as of the date of the bill’s enactment.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban_n_2541743.html
Are Senators not government officials?
Always with the insults.
“Funny how you run from it when it does not work so well for you”
Can you substantiate that?
I will make a deal and stick to it I promise. I will turn over all my weapons and permit, when anyone who is in politics, president included, hollywood fame or judges have thier body guards do the same. They put thier pants on just like me and you and are no differant then us.
I dont work for them they work for me. So when they give up thiers I will give up mine. Until then keep your hands off what I am aloud, under the constitution.
Does anyone here really knowthe no.’s. I believe in the last 3 yrs only 1, yes 1 person was killed by a weapon you are trying to ban, in the state of Va. There are more ppl killed in a day because of a car. I dont understand the mentality of the argument here. The proof is just not there to warrent this.
#97 – “Michael, it’s a bit disingenuous to say a slide stock doesn’t make a gun fully automatic.”
There’s nothing disingenuous about it at all Scott. It is simply the truth. A slide stock does NOT make a gun fully automatic. One round fired per trigger pull is NOT an automatic weapon, no matter how fast one pulls the trigger.
Seriously, Scott, I think you should stay away from discussions concerning the function of firearms. No offense, but you really have no idea what you are talking about.
#96 – “She may have misspoken, she may have used rhetoric and hyperbole (like we all do) but the fact remains that it is only a “lie” in the most strict and resentful sense.”
She did not misspeak. She did not use rhetoric or hyperbole. She made a clear comment about cops having to break into a gun store.
It was and is a lie. The ignorant and gullible gungrabbers who will do anything fell for it and are saying it’s true. You yourself said it happened when it really did not.
I don’t know who you were referring to when you said, “Funny how you run from it when it does not work so well for you”, but I assure you, I am not running from anything.
I think this blog “substantiates that”, From Bush/Cheney lies to Romney lies to general right wing lies to any lie from the GOTP, the refusal to admit they are lies, that it matters, or that it should not be defended is rather the norm. Are you trying to say it is not?
Odd how you did not bold “and any weapons legally owned as of the date of the bill’s enactment.” I am sure it was an oversight, as the bill CLEARLY exempts many more than just “lawmakers”!
@102 Michael, thanks but I’ll stay in if you don’t mind.
And I reiterate, you’re merely trying to define the problem away.
A slide stock fires almost as fast as a fully automatic weapon. So fast in fact, it’s disingenuous to characterize it as a semi-automatic.
What Feinstein said, according to the transcript was: “These are weapons that are made to kill large numbers of people in close combat. And what we have found, that, now, with the AR-15, they have a slide stock which you put in. It’s legal. And it makes the gun act fully automatic.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57566071/face-the-nation-transcripts-january-27-2013-feinstein-kelly-gingrich-blackburn/?pageNum=2
Now according to this guy, that is the truth:
“The Slide Fire is a $369 replacement stock for your AR-15 that when used properly, simulates automatic fire. Since the invention of the semi-automatic rifle people have been learning to do what is called “bump firing” the gun. You hold the gun in a loose way and allow it to rock back and forth against the trigger finger, which simulates automatic fire. It is fun, but it burns a lot of ammo without any real ability to aim at anything.”
http://www.gunsandmore.info/Slidefire%20ssar15%20Like%20Full%20Auto%20FA.htm
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/01/07/slide_fire_this_simple_legal_add_on_lets_an_ar_15_fire_900_rounds_per_minute.html
“Why are AR-15-style rifles so popular? As Cracked.com put it, “the AR-15 is kind of the gun-dweeb’s version of Linux: All kinds of modifications can be made to it.” It’s relatively simple for an enthusiastic marksman to customize the rifle to his specifications—adding a scope and other optics, swapping in a new grip, or trigger, or barrel. These modifications are more or less benign. But there’s another change that’s more problematic: For a few hundred dollars, you can convert the semi-automatic AR-15 into a rifle that can simulate automatic fire. And it’s perfectly legal.”
“The guys over at Slide Fire Solutions believe there is more than one way to skin a cat. They have come up with a different take on the idea and designed the SSAR-15 stock as a way to effectively “bumpfire” your AR-15 wile still managing to get approval from the ATF.”
http://www.702shooter.com/product-reviews/ssar15-stock-slide-fire-solutions/
IDK but maybe it is not Scott who should “stay away from discussions concerning the function of firearms. No offense, but you really have no idea what you are talking about.”
No, I do not believe any of you tyranny fighters will run. Your guns make you believe you are secure. I also do not believe for a second you can stand your ground against the government you so openly despise. This debate is about whether you have the right to any arms you desire. The truth is not some exclusive purview of the gun advocates.
Have you guys looked at the bill being offered by Feinstein?
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
It’s got about 100 pages of exempt weapons. Sheesh! Why bother having a gun ban at all then?
Also, my quick read through the bill seems to make exemptions for law enforcement officer and not government officials in general.
#104 – Bush is gone and Cheney is gone, so what they lied about is moot right now. Did they lie about stuff? Of course they did. But nothing can be done about it now.
In the “here and now” Feinstein is the liar in the limelight. Her lies are being told in an effort to take away our Constitutional rights.
Despite what you’d like, opponents of this will not go away or be quiet.
#82 How something “acts” when used to predicate what someone (Feinstein) says it “is”….especially when false & with the purpose to mis-lead, is lying in my book.
I don’t think I need to defend the veracity of my posts….but thanks.
#83 Thanks. No.
#107 – “And it makes the gun act fully automatic.”
Again with the Feinstein lies, Sandi?
A slide stock does not make a weapon act fully automatic. It increases the ability for it to fire rapidly, but one-round-per-trigger-pull IS NOT fully automatic no matter how fast you pull the trigger.
If it DID make the weapon fully automatic (like Feinstein says it does) it would be illegal.
“which simulates automatic fire” is just that…a simulation. It is NOT actual automatic fire.
Want to keep talking facts about weapons, Sandi? I’ll be happy to continue clearing up your misconceptions and false claims.
#91 The guns manifestly in question here, the .223 caliber semi-automatic, AR-15 type rifle are not “high powered guns”.
Another lie. Or am I parsing?
#108 – “The truth is not some exclusive purview of the gun advocates.”
I’m sorry, Sandi, but based on what you’ve written here and claimed to have happened, I don’t think you are capable of distinguishing what the truth is.
And that’s not an insult…it’s simply my opinion concerning this issue.
Michael, for you to “continue clearing up your misconceptions and false claims”, you would need to start first. I have offered documentation to what was said, why it was said and what the truth of the issue is. You have offered an anonymous blogger’s opinion and insult. Nothing more. Do not confuse the two. “I don’t think you are capable of distinguishing what the truth is” either so I suppose that makes us even.
Yes Jim Lucas you are parsing again. The “guns manifestly in question here” are the guns on the list in the bill and some of them ARE “high powered guns”.
@98,
It appears the Huffington Post article writer had improper information that you used to try and make an issue with Sandi. Perhaps Ms. Feinstein had similar information given to her. The bill allows law enforcement officers to use the weapons, not every person in government. My question is why are retired officers allowed to have these weapons? Everyone can own them if acquired before passage (good luck with that) of the bill. Why the special exception for retirees?
@97,
Scott M., if you ever have the opportunity to fire a fully automatic weapon you’ll immediately know these slide (bump) stocks are toys. Neat idea, but nothing compares to a fully auto. weapon, or the pure adrenalin rush!
From the bill,
sale
2 to, transfer to, or possession by the United States
3 or a department or agency of the United States or
4 a State or a department, agency, or political subdivi-
5 sion of a State, or a sale or transfer to or possession
6 by a qualified law enforcement officer employed by
7 the United States or a department or agency of the
8 United States or a State or a department, agency,
9 or political subdivision of a State, for purposes of
10 law enforcement (whether on or off duty), or a sale
11 or transfer to or possession by a campus law en-
12 forcement officer for purposes of law enforcement
13 (whether on or off duty);
14 ‘‘(B) the importation for, or sale or transfer to
15 a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of
16 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining
17 an on-site physical protection system and security
18 organization required by Federal law, or possession
19 by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site
20 for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-
21 authorized training or transportation of nuclear ma-
22 terials;
23 ‘‘(C) the possession, by an individual who is re-
24 tired in good standing from service with a law en-
25 forcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited 16
OLL13052 S.L.C.
1 from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault
2 weapon—
3 ‘‘(i) sold or transferred to the individual by
4 the agency upon such retirement; or
5 ‘‘(ii) that the individual purchased, or oth-
6 erwise obtained, for official use before such re-
7 tiremen
I cannot find any language in the Bill that gives an exemption to law makers. There is this however:
“…shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.
…shall not apply to the possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.”
Are maybe some folks reading this “shall not apply to” as meaning lawmakers?
“…possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a sale or transfer to or possession by a qualified law enforcement officer employed by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty), or a sale or transfer to or possession by a campus law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty)” ? Heck if I am sure what that means.
Michael…
I’m just about over your continued tyrade about Senator Fienstien “lying” in her remarks on Face the Nation on Sunday. At this point, I’m not even sure what it is you’re accusing her of lying about, but from what I can gather, it must have something to do with police officers breaking into a gun shop to get weapons to defend themselves.
Well, in case you don’t remember…on February 28, 1997, there was an armed robbery of a Bank of America branch in North Hollywood, CA wherein the robbers were armed with body armor and armor piercing bullets fired by assault weapons. It was during that particular crime that police officers who were so totally out gunned went into a gun store and walked out with more powerful weapons in order to combat the robbers.
You can interchange “broke into” with “burst into” or “ran into” or “crawled into” or any other synonym thereof and get the same point that the Senator was trying to make. The police had to get their hands on more powerful weapons in order to defend themselves in that particular situation.
So…Did the good Senator lie about this point? I would say not.
Thank you for the correction, Blue John. I found out the same thing you did (should have checked before posting). Thank you for the comeuppance.
105 – that was not the point I was making (or trying to make). I also did not bold Super Bowl predictions or stats from this weekend’s ACC basketball action.
#117 Mrs. Saunders you are IMO being disingenuous, obfuscating & yes, parsing:
“That is a dangerous and still likely scenario on any stop or call they get with the proliferation of such high powered guns, ammo and armor available to the pulic……”
I’m pretty sure the crux of this thread has been the “assault weapon” issue/proposed ban. It is most certainly the red herring used by the ant-gun ilk.
As to “high powerd” guns on the list, as opposed to the “assault” weapons…you just IMO conceeded the distinction. Thank you.
As to genuine “high powered guns” & their “proliferation”, perhaps you might elaborate.
I’ve always wondered at what point one would determine that there’s a sufficient amount of tyranny afoot that one would fire on a law enforcement officer coming up the front walkway.
My workplace does not allow guns, and I guess that means that if the tyranny starts happening this afternoon, my coworkers who have their guns in their vehicles might not be able to get to them fast enough to help their well-organized militias defend America.
#120 – I’m sorry you feel it’s a tirade, Will, but I guess unlike many here, I’m tired of politicians lying in order to further their aganda.
That may be perfectly acceptable behavior to you, but not to me.
I do remember the incident you are talking about. Quite well, in fact, since I was living in Los Angeles at the time.
And yes, the police went into the gun store to get more powerful weapons.
Why were they outgunned? In all liklihood, someone probably told them that they would never need the weapons they wanted to defend themselves.
Gee…does that sound familiar?
Anyway, Feinstein did not tell the truth. Liberals and gungrabbers are willing to let that go because it furthers their own agenda. Advocates for the 2nd Amendment will not.
Is it so wrong to demand the truth? Especially from a US Senator?
There. Did that clarify things for you?
@125 Michael…
In a word, NO.
You have not yet specified what you percieve the Senator to be lying about. You throw the word “lie” around like someone drawing a breath, but yet you’ve not provided any specifics as to exactly what it is you think anyone is supposed to be lying about.
So can you be a little more specific in your accusation of the good Senator because when it comes to the issue of police havnig to go after bigger weapons in a gun store, she is clearly telling the truth.
And by the way…its not wrong to demand the truth from any one at any time…but it is summarily wrong to accuse someone of lying when they’re not.
Or perhaps you now have the privilege of parsing words like run into versus break into. Either way, the guns were obtained under extraordinary circumstances that would not equate to someone just walking in and making a casual purchase…just in case that escaped you.
Michael, I am happy to see you somewhat publicly state that it is wrong to lie or to let that go because it furthers an agenda you agree with. I will remember that stringent interpretation and look forward to an equal application of the mantra.
#126 – “…but yet you’ve not provided any specifics as to exactly what it is you think anyone is supposed to be lying about.”
Really, Will?
Good Lord, I’ve only mentioned her saying the cops had to break into a gunstore seveal times.
The cops DID NOT have to break into a gun store. Read that again, Will…THEY DID NOT HAVE TO BREAK INTO A GUN STORE.
She lied about it. It did not happen.
And there is no parsing of words. She said it.
Why are you so unable to admit that?
Will, just think of it as a “mushroom cloud” or “yellow cake uranium” or “WMD’s”, or “If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.”
@130 Michael….
Do you know for a fact that the gun store was open for business at the time the robbery was taking place? From the articles tthat I have read, most accounts have it that the police forcbily entered the gun shop and took the more powerful weapons with which to defend themselves.
Now…in the heat of the moment, I doubt seriously that any of the officers involved casually walked into the gun store and casually shopped for heavy duty weaponry.
I would even go further to bet that they did anything but casually walk in. I suspect that the events at that time had them in a very excited state such that the mere act of coming through the door was probably close akin to breaking the door when they came through. Some of the accounts I’ve read have the police officers superiors giving permission for the officers in the line of fire to do whatever necessary to secure weapons to defend themselves.
I think your hysteria at the Senators characterization of this incident is way off base and has been proven patently wrong.
@121,
My post was for information only, not intended as comeuppance. I understand the N.Y. law, as originally written, banned the police from using the rifles. I would think including law enforcement and government agencies in the bill to be redundant, given their weapons are fully automatic.
#132 – “I think your hysteria at the Senators characterization of this incident is way off base and has been proven patently wrong.”
Hysteria, Will? Hardly.
I’m simply standing firm on a point. A point that makes a Liberal Senator look bad and, as a result, the excuses have flown by the Liberal members here.
I expected as much.
I’ve made my point…repeatedly. Supported it…repeatedly. Supplied Sandi’s oh-so-precious facts…only to have them ignored…repeatedly.
I’m done. I think I’ll go teach a pig to sing…it’s surely easier than getting Liberals to admit they are wrong.
Ya’ll have a nice night.
Will, the police did not break into the store.
A “slide stock” does not make a semi-auto, full auto.
She said both, she lied.
The mis-information & outright lies by the anti-gun bunch is legion. Excuse it if you wish.
Jim and Michael…
The accounts I’ve read from those days following indicate that the officers were given permission to obtain the weapons they needed to defend themselves but their superiors. How they entered the premises to get them remains debatable; but, I think it is very safe to say they probably entered the premises in a somewhat less conventional fashion than simply strolling in the door and browsing the cases of weapons until they found one or two of their liking.
If they broke into the store, I doubt that it could be characterized in the fashion that you seem to lay at the Senator’s feet. With any degree of grasping reality, I would say the most likely scenario would have them breaking in a door and getting the weapons they needed from the store owner who in all likelihood had the store closed up as a result of the shoot out that was occurring.
Perhaps if the Senator had said the officers casually walked into the gun store and shopped for weapons, then you might be happy…but you and I both know that’s not how that situation went down. It seems to me that your side is trying to create a scenario that could not have possibly taken place…oh wait…is that possibly a lie to create a diversion from the real issue at hand? How convenient if albeit deadly.
As far as slide stock…stationary stock…cattle stock….I frankly don’t give a damn about the type of gun anymore and the modifications that one can do to them. Your knit picking is becoming laughable. Whether you call it a rose thorn or a briar…it will still prick you and make you bleed.
It’s really kind of sad because as I sit here and type this, a man in southeast AL boarded a school bus this afternoon, shot and killed the driver and kidnapped one of the students and is now engaged in a hostage situation. How pitiful too in that AL has some of the most lax gun laws in the land.
Will, if you are not interested in accurate definitions of what guns you think should be banned (a very pertinent issue when accurate)….I can only assume you wish them all to be banned, or, you or quite willing to leave it to the inaccurate caprice of those like Feinstein.
I respectfully submit for your consideration that if Feinstein et al, had valid arguments they could make them truthfully.
Jim…
You can knit pick the types of weapons until pigs fly and it won’t serve your position any better.
There are indeed subtle differences between automatic vs semi automatic weapons. You are surely smart enough to know that the differences aren’t that dramatic.
If you need something that fires multiple rounds with the single squeeze of a trigger then Im wondering what it is you’re hunting.
I submit to you sir…that if you and yours were serious about finding reasonable and responsible solutions to this problem, you wouldn’t get hysterical about such ridiculous minucia.
#138 – “…that if you and yours were serious about finding reasonable and responsible solutions to this problem, you wouldn’t get hysterical about such ridiculous minucia.
And I submit to you, Will, that if you and yours were sincere, you wouldn’t make excuses for the lies being spread by the left and gungrabbers.
Michael, what about the lies being spread by the gun nuts and the right?
“The 1994 assault weapon ban did not stop Columbine. The Justice Department found the ban ineffective.” Charles Grassley
“The 2004 study conducted for the Justice Department did not conclude the decade-old ban was a failure or a success. The nuanced report found that the effects of the ban “have yet to be fully realized” and it might take years to see results directly attributable to the prohibition on certain weapons and large capacity magazines.”
“I think without any doubt, if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it (the Second Amendment) there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny.”
~Wayne LaPierre
It is a lie that the Second Amendment is about fighting the government. The militia was used to put down such rebellion. Then, and now.
Do you think the government is coming to confiscate your guns?
Do you think that the gun laws and systems now help criminals and mass shooters gain guns?
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 10:08 pm
Do you think the government is coming to confiscate your guns?
———-
Do I think that those who hope to do so will succeed? Nope.
Do I think that some of those in the seats of power and proposing prohibitions would if the could? Yup.
In Feinstein’s own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DKuN2ey80
[Video -- watch it to the end]
With her new weapons ban bill looming. It’s time to know the real story. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) really wants to take your Constitutional right away.
SNIP
**
#138 “If you need something that fires multiple rounds with the single squeeze of a trigger then Im wondering what it is you’re hunting.”
….multiple rounds with the single squeeze of a trigger….
Will you make my case. Thank you.
Michael…
I’ve summarily dismissed your premise about your lies and innuendo. You can continue to claim that bs until hell freezes over, but you’re plain wrong.
I’ve been very sincere about my feelings toward controlling weapons in this country and I don’t get hung up on making any distinction between the types of guns because that’s the kind of crap that keeps getting in the way of solutions. You’re so worried about not being able to get a certain type of weapon at the drop of a hat that you loose site of the problem.
But perhaps you can tell the next child that is shot by one of those precious weapons as he or she is dying in your arms that you stood strong for him or her to have the right to carry one of them.
138 – will, weapons that can fire multiple rounds from a single trigger pull are fully automatic, are already illegal, and have been good a long time.
Michael, no one can deny that there are all sorts of “banners” in this world. Calling for a ban, even when there is a group doing so, is not the action. It never has been. That is a HUGE distinction you miss.
Feinstein is 1 senator. She has to convince another 59 to vote her way. Do you think that is remotely possible? Do you think the House would uphold it if she could? Do you REALLY believe Obama or any President would sign it into law? That whole “ban guns”, “take our guns” BS is just that, BS. In your vernacular, it is a lie. It is a lie to fire up the gun nuts, the anti-government nuts and the armed nuts (these persecuted fools are always armed, oddly enough). It is a total lie. Even people like me who support this ban effort, would never support that. I repeat, it is a lie.
Facebook Question: “Why do Conservatives Seem to Believe that Outlawing Guns Won’t Prevent Gun Violence, but Outlawing Abortion Will Prevent Abortion?“
Re: Sandi Saunders — January 31, 2013 @ 8:05 am
“It is a lie….”
—————–
Read my comment January 30, 2013 @ 11:01 pm
“Do I think that those who hope to do so will succeed? Nope.
Do I think that some of those in the seats of power and proposing prohibitions would if the could? Yup.
In Feinstein’s own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DKuN2ey80 ”
—–
I said that I don’t think they can. FWIIW, I should have qualified that as at this time.
If there is a “lie” in this debate it is the claim that none of shakers and movers in the Prohibition / more restrictions movement actually want to prohibit all private ownership of all guns. Such denial is either outright chicanery or self-delusion.
Do I REALLY believe President Obama would sign it into law?
You bet I do — particularly in his second term.
I have read a lot of name calling, comments to dig at, poke or intended to offend someone else with a different opinion of gun control. It really saddens me when one feels they are loosing in an adult disscusion they start using childish tactics to belittle the other. Gun ownship is a right, period. What type of gun a person owns is their choice, just as what type of car one buys, or what type of house they choose to live in. As long as what they do do with those things does not hurt someone or infrenge on someone elses rights, then it should be fine, no problem. It should not matter to any one what type of self defence I choose to have to protect me, my family or property, I will choose what I feel is safe and effective for me, my family and do the job. If someone does not agree with me, fine, disagree, but DO NOT push your values on me or mine simply because you think yours is better. That is your opinion by your choices, not mine. I don’t have the right, nor does anyone else, to tel you what will make you feel safe any more that I hav a right to tell you you are not cold, simply because I don’t feel cold. It is a simple discussion, if you don’t like guns, don’t buy them, if you like guns, ok, do so responsibly. No law passed will stop anyone who wants to hurt another from doing so. They will use what ever they can fine, steal, buy, even make to do the damage they want to do. That is why they are criminals. Law abiding people respect others and property. Simple. Inforce the laws we have, tougher penalties. Just because some owns a gun, no matter the type or how much ammo it will hold, does not mean they intend to or will use it to hurt or kill anyone. Just as owning a car that will go 160 mph will mean you will be driving over the posted speed limit. You can not limit the rights of anyone or group simply because you think they might do something. If you feel you need a tank, and can afford the gas, to protect you, your family and your home, fine, as long as it does not break any laws or interfer with the rights of others.
How can you take anyone who doesn’t know difference between a Semi-auto and full-auto seriously? Full-Autos have been banned under the Firearms Act of 1934. Before any elected official is allowed to put their 2 cents in, they should be required to pass a competency test on the subject matter first.
And speaking of this Firearms Act of 1934 Phil, which banned “Full-Autos”, how’s that working for us? Sorta, kinda, in a way proves the point that gun control and gun restrictions can work pretty well. Are you claiming there are no modifications that can be done to guns once purchased? Nothing to make them even “seem” more nearly “automatic” fire?
Jim, I don’t think anyone has said that self-defense and owning a firearm are not a right. Like I said, not one is disputing that, it is merely a red herring to get people fighting and distracted.
I do not believe the Constitution guarantees anyone the right to any specific gun or magazine. THAT is the issue we are debating.
Also, not just any car can be made and put on the highway and not just any house can be thrown together and lived in either. Both have many restrictions and regulations attached.
Aw, Sandi, if people want full autos, they’ll get them. It’s a market thing, and is dependent on the value people place on them. Remember, in 1934, Prohibition had just ended, a spectacularly successful ban that created a huge black market, which it made it worth the criminals’ while to have full autos. This was the cause of all the crime, not the presence of fully automatic weapons. I would wager that the only reason the ban on fully automatic weapons passed was because it was so soon after Prohibition.
There are certain segments of the population that have fully automatic weapons now, in spite of the ban, specifically those who deal in the huge black market in drugs from yet another spectacularly successful ban. Most people, particularly those who want to hold up a liquor store or the 7-11 on the corner want something easily concealed and easily operated and easily disposed of, which fully automatic weapons are not. Put differently, there is more value to the average bad guy to something small, concealable, cheap and disposable.
There is a black market for fully automatic weapons. Most criminals don’t want them.
Also, what you believe the Constitution says is right: it does not guarantee anyone the right to any specific gun or magazine, not explicitly. It DOES, however, explicitly prohibit the federal government from preventing anyone the right to any specific gun or magazine. Remember, the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, restricts what the government can do, not what the people can do.
Think about the one Amendment that has been passed that placed limits on what people could do: it failed miserably and had to be repealed.
Where does the Constitution “explicitly prohibit the federal government from preventing anyone the right to any specific gun or magazine”? I have surely missed that line.
You certainly did, Sandi, but only because you wanted to.
Re: Sandi Saunders | February 19, 2013 at 3:33 pm
banned “Full-Autos”, how’s that working for us?
——————
First, they are not banned. They are heavily regulated and very expensive.
As you know from an earlier thread in Dan’s blog, Virginia leads the States in the number owned.
Second, can you site a single crime that has been committed with one?
dave, so your argument seems to be that raising gun prices, perhaps through huge taxes, and stringent regulations, if applied to all guns and ammo, would decrease the violence.
Well then 89Hoo, where is it?
–
Dave Hicks, thanks! You make my point. Having them “heavily regulated” has helped make them not a choice for criminals, which is the goal. Do the same with these guns that seem to hold such fascination for the freaks and it might help some of these mass shootings not happen.
Certainly some of the guns used by these mass shooters were not cheap. So just going with “expensive” which is hard to nail down, but still a consideration, would not work. The machismo associated with these guns is just not to be dismissed as a factor in why they want them. It is so often dismissed as just our “ignorance” that the only difference is “cosmetic”, but it is that very “cosmetic” difference that makes these freaks want them.
Re: Sandi Saunders at 7:49 am
-
And price them out of the range of the average citizen?
-
No thank you.
-
I’m not only anti-authoritarian, I am also anti-elitist, also.
-
FWIIW, I suspect that authoritarianism and elitist-ism has a significant overlap of members.
Re: Name Withheld at 7:32 am
-
Now what in the world would give you such a convoluted idea.
-
Just look at Mexico, where private ownership is almost impossible — save for the rich.
-
Did you learn nothing from the Great Prohibition?
Dave, I was just going on what you wrote. Maybe I should not accept your comments at their face value in the future. Mexico and the Great Prohibition are not the issue here.
Many of these guns are already priced out of the range of the average citizen from the prices I saw on a lot of them. The point is not to make every gun affordable or available. It never should be. THAT is part of the problem.
Most people under 50 have no knowledge of government sponsored massacres that took place in China, Japan, Russia, Poland, Germany, and Vietnam. In every instance gun control was the precursor to each massacre. More recently, we had the slaughter of 750, 000 unarmed people in Rwanda, and a few hundred thousand more in Darfur. Those persecuted in these countries would have eagerly traded 5 Sandy Hooks a day for the misery and bloodshed they endured. It’s frightening how poorly educated the author of that letter is.