Posts: 31,261
Threads: 2,348
Joined: Feb 2025
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.
If that's really their tactic, maybe they ought to step back and see what it begat, perhaps adopt a new strategy? (you're so full of sh!t on this, it oozes out from your post)
Posts: 2,788
Threads: 313
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation:
0
Ted King wrote:
Smart, powerful people are misinformed about a lot of things and accidentally say things they didn't intend to say quite frequently. I don't buy your argument.
Man, that's a lot of leeway you give for our Glorious Leader Barack Hussein Obama.
Don't recall such leeway given to George W. Bush when he was "misinformed" and said thing he didn't "intend" to say quite frequently.
But he's not the Saviour you were trying to save.
Posts: 2,788
Threads: 313
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation:
0
davester wrote:
...if Lanza used a fully automatic weapon then it would WEAKEN Obama's stance on gun control since those weapons are already illegal...
The bottom line is that Lanza did not use a fully automatic weapon.
One thing to note is that these so-called "assault weapons" were used in 2 percent of gun crimes before the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.
And according to FactCheck.org:
Christopher S. Koper wrote:
Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs (Assault Weapons), any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs (large-capacity magazines), which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs.
However, the grandfathering provision of the AW-LCM ban guaranteed that the effects of this law would occur only gradually over time. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers. It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence.
FactCheck.org wrote:
Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the...-ban-work/
davester wrote:
They should instead be all saying "Yeah! What the black kenyan president guy said!"
That's just...stupid.
Posts: 2,788
Threads: 313
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation:
0
deckeda wrote:
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?
Looks like you laid it out better than I did. It's how the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" came to be named and how semi-automatic weapons have become "assault weapons" in the lexicon.
deckeda wrote:
At what point does the falsehood become ineffective at helping further gun restrictions? Never? After a while? How about ... yesterday.
Falsehood? The "esteemed" author of the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013", Senator Feinstein doesn't seem above trying just that:
FactCheck.org wrote:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced a bill to institute a new ban on assault weapons, claimed the 1994 ban “was effective at reducing crime.” That’s not correct either. The study concluded that “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the...-ban-work/
Posts: 2,788
Threads: 313
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation:
0
davester wrote:
...most people don't know the difference...
Which is exactly why Obama would drop in "automatic" and anti-gun wackos use "scary" words to frighten the populace.
davester wrote:
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.
Killing power is not the same as Rate of Fire - which is what you're trying to argue.
A .223 Remington round has the same "killing power" whether it comes out of an M4 Military Select-Fire Automatic, AR-15 Semi-Automatic or Tikka T3 Bolt Action rifle.
And a semi-auto AR-15 is not "slightly modified" in order to become a full-auto weapon equivalent of the M4. It requires extensive knowledge, very skilled machine work, replacing the trigger, replacing the bolt carrier and obtaining a full-auto sear.
While there are alternatives than can force an AR-15 into something that is similar to full-auto, those bump fire methods require a technique that loses all tactical accuracy of the firearm in favor of "spray and pray" type of shooting.
davester wrote: 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.
Obviously, you have little to no understanding of weapons or their use - but, as you said above: "most people don't know the difference..."
Posts: 23,018
Threads: 575
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
2
Wow, quite the mythology has sprung up in this thread explaining Obama's goals for deliberately choosing that word choice. I invoke Hanlon's Razor here unless he uses this phrasing again. I give no such quarter when a slip of the tongue changes "baby formula" into "weapons of mass destruction" and we kill 100,000.
Posts: 32,462
Threads: 3,127
Joined: Apr 2025
Reputation:
0
Mac-A-Matic wrote:
[quote=deckeda]
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?
Looks like you laid it out better than I did. It's how the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" came to be named and how semi-automatic weapons have become "assault weapons" in the lexicon.
Semi-automatic weapons are exceedingly good at assaulting, as one of your quotes above indicates. Hence the modern reference that doesn't ignore how they're used. Or perhaps I'm wrong and you really need those LCM's to conclusively take care of Bambi each season.
Mac-A-Matic wrote: [quote=deckeda]
At what point does the falsehood become ineffective at helping further gun restrictions? Never? After a while? How about ... yesterday.
Falsehood? The "esteemed" author of the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013", Senator Feinstein doesn't seem above trying just that:
FactCheck.org wrote:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced a bill to institute a new ban on assault weapons, claimed the 1994 ban “was effective at reducing crime.” That’s not correct either. The study concluded that “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the...-ban-work/
My question was clearly about what the President said, not about something I couldn't have known you were going to reply about instead. You're still drifting.
That FactCheck link was nevertheless interesting. I can include some quotes from it you neglected to include in your posts if you like, like ones that mentioned Feinstein's comments, "The study found 'clear indications that the use of assault weapons in crime did decline after the ban went into effect' and that assault weapons were becoming rarer as the years passed (this is the part of the study Feinstein seized on)."
Posts: 41,879
Threads: 3,652
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Posts: 13,934
Threads: 1,261
Joined: May 2025
Mac-A-Matic wrote:
Don't recall such leeway given to George W. Bush when he was "misinformed" and said thing he didn't "intend" to say quite frequently.
I did give Bush leeway for such things several times when he was president.
Posts: 6,473
Threads: 536
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
RgrF wrote:
[quote=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.
If that's really their tactic, maybe they ought to step back and see what it begat, perhaps adopt a new strategy? (you're so full of sh!t on this, it oozes out from your post)
? I would say it was quite successful, at least when first used, circa 1993-1994. Whether or not it'll work again - who knows, but since it still takes place, it appears to either still be in use, or the folks doing so are part of the ignorant masses who really have no idea or knowledge of what they are trying to discuss.
|
