Obama lies again

[Dennis S]

Say swampy, why don't you just sit on these petty penny-ante lies until they roughly equal something like, say, YELLOW CAKE URANIUM.

[Black]

$tevie wrote:
[quote=davester]if Lanza used a fully automatic weapon then it would WEAKEN Obama's stance on gun control since those weapons are already illegal and gun nuts could say "see, legislation against semiautos wouldn't have helped one bit.

I don't think it can be made any clearer than this.
Thanks-- missed davester's post. Pretty clearly just trying to get us to chase our tails then....

(this is exactly how Trouble operated when he had nothing...)

[gabester]

Frankly, I don't give a hoot whether we're talking about automatic, semi-auto or single-shot firearms.

I'd like to hear the reasoned answer to Black's sarcastic question - how does differentiating between any of them truly matter?

We need a gun control policy that prevents them from getting into the hands of people who aren't worthy of them.

But frankly, if we really want to save lives, shouldn't we be talking about stricter policy in issuing licenses to drive? Let's get over this political bullhooey and start working on really solving problems in practical ways. It would go a long way towards eliminating gridlock if we stopped beating straw-man arguments.

[deckeda]

Mac-A-Matic wrote:
[quote=deckeda]
The only puzzlement is how it would be used to further any gun restrictions. Black's question still stands --- people are upset here Obama's comment paints an unfair picture of guns but can't come up with a plausible scenario of how.

The president has been speaking on gun restrictions and bans for quite some time now, this is just another point in his program.

How does it paint an "unfair" picture of guns? By stating that the weapon used was an automatic weapon when those weapons are highly restricted and very tightly regulated - never mind the fact that an automatic weapon was not used in the commission of any of these white-on-white shootings....
If I understand you correctly, you're convinced Obama furthers gun restrictions by making guns appear worse than they are, by falsely attributing Lanza as using a more dangerous gun than he used or even, from a practical standpoint, could have used due to existing tougher regs on automatics.

Again I ask, how does this process work? Do people refer back to the speech and say, "Remember Lanza? He used an automatic weapon.' And more and more people do this, no one recognizes the obvious factual error and the next thing you know all guns are outlawed?

At what point does the falsehood become ineffective at helping further gun restrictions? Never? After a while? How about ... yesterday.

[SDGuy]

Misrepresenting semi-automatic firearms as machines guns has been a common tactic with the left since at least the early 1990s...the ignorant masses believe it, and clamor for laws to outlaw access to "assault style weapons", thinking that machine guns are easily obtainable by anyone at the corner gunstore.

I also notice that the original disclaimer, "style", isn't even used anymore - we now have "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" as part of the vernacular - completely ignoring the origins and original meaning of the word as referencing selective-fire rifles, thus leaving no distinction between truly full-automatic and semi-automatic firearms.

[Spock]

SDGuy wrote:
we now have "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" as part of the vernacular -

I much prefer "Weapons of War", it paints a more realistic picture.

[Dennis S]

"While there are legally registered fully automatic weapons of pre 1986 vintage, such registration requires a special federal license. It is believed that none of these weapons has ever been used in any crime."

BINGO!

[Dennis S]

Spock wrote:
[quote=SDGuy]
we now have "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" as part of the vernacular -

I much prefer "Weapons of War", it paints a more realistic picture.
I think the correct term is "Penile Compensators."

[Black]

Dennis S wrote:
[quote=Spock]
[quote=SDGuy]
we now have "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" as part of the vernacular -

I much prefer "Weapons of War", it paints a more realistic picture.
I think the correct term is "Penile Compensators."
Are there any studies planned to assess whether the alleged reverse correlation between penis size and gun lust has any factual foundation?
I'd like to volunteer as a research assistant.

[davester]

SDGuy wrote:
Misrepresenting semi-automatic firearms as machines guns has been a common tactic with the left since at least the early 1990s...the ignorant masses believe it, and clamor for laws to outlaw access to "assault style weapons", thinking that machine guns are easily obtainable by anyone at the corner gunstore.

This is a straw man without factual basis. Certainly, most people don't know the difference, and in many cases the difference is pretty close to irrelevant when you consider that a handheld machine gun can only be fired in short bursts and is virtually equalled in killing power by a semiauto slightly modified to allow rapid fire. You are arguing semantics that are irrelevant.

SDGuy wrote: I also notice that the original disclaimer, "style", isn't even used anymore - we now have "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" as part of the vernacular - completely ignoring the origins and original meaning of the word as referencing selective-fire rifles, thus leaving no distinction between truly full-automatic and semi-automatic firearms.

Is this "style" thing something you made up, or what?...not that it matters much. Gun nuts seem to revel in the fact that "assault weapon" is a vague term and that its vagueness or somehow using imprecise nomenclature somehow vindicates their vilifying of laws designed to get highly deadly weapons of use for nothing other than mass slaughter of humans out of the public's hands. The rapid-fire characteristics of many of the popular weapons of today have only one practical value...to mass slaughter whatever it is you're shooting at before the slaughterees can escape. Human or animal, neither is justified.