“You don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting, it certainly is not part of anybody’s family heritage or family tradition.” – White House Spokesman Josh Earnest
Of course, Josh is either ignorant of the fact that many people hunt with rifles that the gun control camp refers to as "assault weapons".....as well as the fact that they're not mechanically any different than any other semi-automatic rifle...or he is merely proliferating the stale, trite false narratives that his camp always does.
The gun control camps' fetish for willfully conflating semi-automatic rifles with automatic rifles....and emphasis on a 'military' appearance.....lacks integrity and reason that should be expected in discourse amongst adults.
But it's at least entertaining to see him posture as some arbiter of anyone's family heritage or tradition.
For extra credit, I present Sen. Harry Reid:
"The United States is the only advanced country where this type of mass violence occurs," [WRONG] Reid said from the Senate floor. "Let's do something. We can expand, for example, background checks....[DID NOT, AND WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED THE CHARLESTON SHOOTING] We should support not giving guns to people who are mentally ill and felons." [ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW]
Shouldn't we expect more from our elder statesmen? I'm a bit surprised that he didn't fall back on the meme, as POTUS hopeful O'Malley did, on calling for a ban on a type of rifle based on it's appearance.
It appears that Manchin and Toomey will resurrect their failed plot....so the circus continues.
It's bad when someone revels in ignorance about a subject mattet.
ReplyDeleteI guess learning about issues he speaks on is also "above his pay grade".
It's their standard operating procedure.
DeleteI've noticed.
ReplyDeleteSo, both CI and dmarks believe that you *do* need a assault weapon to go hunting? As for "the gun control camps' fetish for willfully conflating semi-automatic rifles with automatic rifles"... You refer to something that has never happened. There is no "fetish".
ReplyDeleteDid you misread something, or are you being willfully ignorant in pursuit of the narrative that fits the agenda? I nor dmarks, stated that one "needs" any specific type of weapon the hunt....Earnest [like others in the gun control camp] proffers that hunters do not use modern sporting rifles. That is categorically false. He also implies that he is the arbiter of traditions and heritage of the American family. Quite a bit of hubris, for a sock puppet.
DeleteYou refer to something that has never happened.
Heh....it makes me both sad and a bit giggly when somebody is so terribly wrong. Since you've exhibited the gold standard of wrong, I'll preface with the gold standard of "assault weapon" quotes:
"Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." - Josh Sugarmann, "Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation", March 1989
Some others:
And I don’t think any parent–any person–should have to fear about their child going to school or going to college because someone, for whatever reason–psychological, emotional, political, [ideological], whatever it means–could possibly enter that school property with an automatic weapon and murder innocent children, students, teachers. - Hillary Clinton, 2014
I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon — by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.“ - Barack Obama, 2013
“She was standing out in a park with her friends in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids…grew up, where our house is. She had just taken a chemistry test. And she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need,” she said. “I just don’t want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first.” - Michelle Obama, 2013
"Military-style assault weapons have but one purpose, and in my view that's a military purpose, to hold at the hip, possibly, to spray fire to be able to kill large numbers." - Diane Feinstein, 2013
And that's just the low hanging fruit. There are plenty more, and I'll be happy to post more examples tomorrow.
What a hunter might need is up to that hunter, and no-one else. I don't presume to dictate their needs. It is not my business.
DeleteWhat a hunter might need is up to that hunter...
DeleteFully automatic machine gun? Rocket launcher? Nuclear missile?
"Modern sporting riffle"... Ha ha ha. I'm actually laughing. That was funny... It makes me both sad and a bit giggly when somebody is so terribly wrong.
So Dervish...were you merely ignorant of what your camp engages in, or were you lying?
Deletehe seems to have a colossal ignorance about firearms and hunting. it is matched only by his colossal arrogance and daring to demand that his personal choices are forced on everyone else.
DeleteLaws always force choices on people. There is no "arrogance". This is just more ad hominem from dmarks.
DeleteIs CI merely ignorant of how an assault weapon has been defined or is he lying?
So you don't have the integrity to recant your previous assertion. Typical.
DeleteWhy would I recant something I was correct on? You clearly don't have the integrity to recant your incorrect assertion.
DeleteI've provided no small amount of evidence proving my assertion......show me yours.
DeleteI did not check your quotes. If they are genuine I would say they are examples of people misspeaking, as there is no reason to do any conflating - previous legislation that banned specific weapons specified which weapons it was referring to. There is nothing to gain by trying to trick people into thinking a weapon that isn't automatic is. Weapons that are not automatic are classified as "assault" and could be banned.
DeleteJosh Sugarmann? I don't know who that is.
Hah! I hope you didn't hurt yourself backpedaling.
DeleteYou really ought to educate yourself if you wish to take such a vociferous position on firearms and the 2nd Amendment....such as the functional differences between automatic firearms and semi-automatic firearms....and the lack of such differences between semi-automatic firearms and those referred to as "assault weapons".
Weapons that are not automatic are classified as "assault" and could be banned.
No, they're not. Not even close.
Case in point, firearms referred to as "assault weapons" do not refer to the entire class of firearms that are "not automatic"....thus the reflex to confuse the general public [as noted by Sugarmann] "Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."......go ahead and claim that that is "misspeaking".........to advance an agenda.
Sugarmann, for your edification, is a leading figure in the gun control movement - and executive director and founder of the "Violence Policy Center (VPC)", formerly known as the "National Coalition to Ban Handguns".
It's a great wonder why you wouldn't "check my quotes"...when you would accuse me of "doesn't have the integrity to admit he was wrong. Again."
I mean c'mon........you posted a Wiki link.....but can't even be bothered to do a cursory Google search, when you state unequivocally that what I posted "never happened"? Are you really that intellectually lazy?
DeleteHows about "guns that shoot a lot really fast," CI? GTSALRF?
ReplyDeleteWhat a silly semantic point.
Arguments like that show why its currently, culturally impossible to have sensible regulation of the private weapons sector. You can't even have an anywhere close to serious conversation about it.
JMJ
Jersey....what you would erroneously refer to as an "assault weapon", doesn't fire any faster than any other semi-automatic rifle. To imply such is a canard, and unworthy or serious conversation. Thank you for making my point.
Delete"Sensible" regulation is not compatible with a slap-dash approach and a bizarre knee-jerk negative reaction when specifics are discussed.
ReplyDeleteMore diversionary stupidity. It's like the sleazy racist anti-immigrant chant, "No immigration reform without border security," while they know full well there will never be enough border security for them to get past that point.
ReplyDeleteAnd I know you were born yesterday under a rock on another world, but what you call "bizarre" is what most civilized people call normal. They look down on people like you. They think you're backwards. When it comes to this issue, I agree with them. Just backwards. I may a well be arguing with the hillbillies from Deliverance.
JMJ
More diversionary stupidity.
DeleteThank you. You've seen the light! The entire strategy of the gun control camp [as evidenced] is nothing more than 'diversionary stupidity'. Instead of having the integrity of their cause to attempt a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, your fellow travelers engage in a nonsensical series of memes, myths and canards....to prop up a tottering narrative of emotion-based tautology.
Your camp exudes a fundamental lack of intellectual maturity and even the slightest grasp of reason....just [as you exemplify] tantrums of stamping your feet and petulant word games.
"A fundamental lack of intellectual maturity"
Delete...a perfect description for someone who thinks that arguing about hunting with nuclear weapons is somehow serious.
Hillbillies? Now Jersey seems to want us to enact very bad policy in the US based on ignorance and stereotypes from people half a planet away. People who have a habit of goose -stepping and slaughtering each other by the millions every couple of generations.
DeleteThat's like expecting that France will change its foreign policy because some Americans think they are "cheese eating surrender monkeys".
...a perfect description for someone who thinks that arguing about hunting with nuclear weapons is somehow serious.
DeleteOnce again...it's SOP for them. Get called out for myth-making....resort to Reductio ad absurdum.
Maybe we can let him enact a ban on hunting with nuclear weapons in exchange for his butting out on matters about firearms that aren't his business and that he has no knowledge about anyway.
Deleteis that a fair exchange? After all, he is so concerned with hunting with nuclear weapons
YOU are the one who asserted that a hunter should be able to hunt with whatever weapon they desired. The stupidity you point to is your own.
Delete"YOU are the one who..."
DeleteNice try, whiney... But the hunter-with-nukes is your pet fantasy, all your own creation I'm not biting.
While we wait patiently for Dervish to validate his claim that "As for "the gun control camps' fetish for willfully conflating semi-automatic rifles with automatic rifles".....
ReplyDelete“Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.” - Barack Obama, October 2012
And a blast from the past, in pursuit of absurd legislation......in arguing for the 1994 "assault weapons" ban, Rep. Ronald D. Coleman (D-Tex.) said he reversed his opposition to the ban because he wanted to "make it harder for drug thugs and gangs to get the machine guns that wantonly kill our police officers and children."
ReplyDeleteOne of my personal favorites is from the ironically named "Protect Minnesota".
ReplyDeleteThe entire screed is laughable, but the money shot is "Assault weapons, by contrast, are designed to spray from the hip many rounds of ammunition in rapid succession and without precision. Assault weapons are also equipped with combat hardware not suitable for sporting purposes such as large-capacity magazines that can hold up to fifty rounds of ammunition, pistol grips that allow for one-handed firing and even grenade launchers."
I suppose, then, that "assault weapons" that launch odd grenades are just fine.
DeleteIt wasn't intellectual laziness, but the fact that I simply do not care. There is no reason to conflate, as proposed legislation banning assault weapons specifies the weapons to be banned. Fully automatic weapons are already banned, so, duh, if any further weapons were banned they would be semiautomatic.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, this Sugarman fellow only noted that there is confusion amongst the public. There is no suggestion (in the quote you provided) that any confusion should be fostered by those seeking to reduce gun violence.
No willful conflation has been proven. Claim validated.
No, they're not. Not even close.
Yes, they are. That is what the whole debate is about. If the only issue was semiauto versus full auto there would be no debate.
You cared enough to pronounce that my assertion never happened. Sadly, our only defense is a poor divination of someone's 'intent'. That's the best you can do?
DeleteAutomatic weapons are in fact, not banned. They require a Class III license to own. Duh indeed.
You stay that Weapons that are not automatic are classified as "assault" and could be banned.
You are incorrect. Again. Rifles that have ergonomic features u related to the mechanical function of the rifle, have been targeted due to their 'menacing' looks. I know exactly what your next assertion will be, because you drink from the hose of fundamental ignorance....so I'll wait patiently while you try to claim that these features render the targeted rifles as "more lethal".
The I'll calmly educate you on the mechanics of firearms...since you have displayed no such grasp, and how these targeted rifle are no more 'lethal' [as is the specious claim] than the entire class of semi-automatic rifles that have not been erroneously label as "assault weapons".
Your claim remains where it has been......disproven and rejected.
Ever talk to a brick wall, C.I. ?
DeleteBy the way, question for C.I. Jersey quoted about "weapons that spray". Considering Jersey's track record on being authoritative about firearms... well, what do you say about this C.I.?
ReplyDeleteCan one specify firearms that spray at gun shows, in catalogs, or fine firearm-selling establishments?
I tried to Google for guns that spray, and the only ones I can find are the type that I can use to change my house from green to blue.
Automatic weapons, to have any sort of accuracy, require controlled 3-6/5-7 round bursts. Notions of "spraying" are hyperbole specifically employed to conjure fear amongst the ill informed. What these intellectual midgets fail to realize is that, if they were truly concerned about the number of projectiles being expelled from a firearm....they would attempt to ban .00 shot for shotguns. Take the average 12 pellet, 2.75" .00 shot shell for a 12 guage.....in a pump that holds 5+1....which gives you 72 lead projectiles capable of inflicting death....and which is fired in a lethal spread....versus an AR with a 30 round magazine.
DeleteThere's probably a long long list of terms, like "spray" and "assault weapons" that have nothing to do with actual firearms matters. Use of these are ready proof that legislators and others in power are instantly unqualified to make any decisions about them.
DeleteAnyway, those who say "they simply do not care" have completely ceded any claim to any strength of argument. But in their statement we find a justification for ignorance.
ReplyDelete