New round in gun issue

[demsrule4life]

Pick up the Yellow Pages and go to "Guns." Call the first gun store you find. Ask what you'll need to purchase a semi-automatic military-style sniper rifle like the one used by John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo to kill 10 people during their 2002 Washington, D.C.-area murder spree.


The Bushmaster, a version of the military's standard AK-47 rifle, was the kind of gun they had in mind: highly accurate, extremely deadly from almost a half-mile away.


Knowing this much helps to understand why, when Malvo and Muhammad were killing people from 500 yards during that summer and fall, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush saw the shootings not as a gun problem so much as a problem of "values.")

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/columnists/ny-livit043694725mar04,0,3402304.column?coll=ny-li-columnists

I guess the class curriculum in journalist school must contain clueless 101 and outright lying 101.

[MrBenchley]

1. Gee, dems....he's telling the truth

"Richard Dyke, chairman of Bushmaster Firearms, the maker of this gun, did so well in fact that he had money left over to contribute to political campaigns. He has long been a big Republican fund-raiser in Maine, his home state. And in the 2000 presidential campaign, he was appointed as George W. Bush's state finance director.
(Knowing this much helps to understand why, when Malvo and Muhammad were killing people from 500 yards during that summer and fall, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush saw the shootings not as a gun problem so much as a problem of "values.")
So, to review just this much: A weak ban on assault weapons is passed in 1994, despite which assault weapons sales flourish. Bush says he will support the ban's extension, but doesn't seem to really mean it. Members of the Republican-controlled House and Senate keep the extension from coming up for a vote; in an election year, no one wants it on record that he or she voted for every American's right to shoot people's heads off from 500 yards.
As Marie Antoinette or someone similar once said, let them eat values. "

[demsrule4life]

2. How can he tell the truth

when he doesn't know what it is. The idiot doesn't even know what our military issued rifle is.

[MrBenchley]

4. Gee, dems...

He sure knows what horseshit the NRA is peddling.....

and it's telling that you have to distort what he says so badly to make even this weakass point.

[demsrule4life]

19. None of the shots were from 500

yards. I doubt if they had the skill to pull that off. The guy is full of shit and has no business writing for a newspaper.

"In order to earn the expert badge, soldiers must hit 36 out of 40 upper torso-sized targets at distances from 50 to 300 meters, without the use of a telescopic sight. Police estimate that none of the D.C. sniper's shots exceeded a range of 175 meters."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa102502a.htm

[MrBenchley]

23. Yeah, THAT was the problem with the Beltway sniper, dems

they could have been better marksmen...

Geeze, sometime the RKBA crowd sounds like parodies of themselves. Where DO you guys get this crap?

[demsrule4life]

27. This tread is about a lying columnist

please try to remember that.

[MrBenchley]

32. He's not lying, dems...

Now go cry about the gun spec trivia to somebody who gives a great big steaming crap.

[demsrule4life]

34. Of course he aint lying

since he is pimping for the anti's.

[MrBenchley]

37. He's not lying

And nobody but a handful of gun porn enthusiasts CARES which military-style rifle the Bushmaster knocks off.

[demsrule4life]

41. Would you settle for clueless?

[MrBenchley]

43. I'd settle for honest

since that's what he is.

[demsrule4life]

48. How does that go?

HaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHAHaHAHaHaHAHA

Now I can wipe the tears from my eyes.

[slackmaster]

58. And the fact that you DON'T want to be bothered with the facts

Disqualifies you from participating in the discussion IMO.

Saying your opponent doesn't know what the hell he or she is talking about has always been a legitimate debating strategy, as long as you can prove it, and that has been done here in spades. Paul Vitello is an ignoramus.

[DarkPhenyx]

10. In his defense...

...the AK-47 is a standard issue military weapon. Just not ours. In his post he does not say it is the American std issue, even if it should be.

[beevul]

17. Except...

that the bushmaster XM-15 is NOT a version of an AK AT ALL. Its a version of the AR-15.


"The Bushmaster, a version of the military's standard AK-47 rifle"(he was referring to the XM-15)

Innacuracys of this nature, whether deliberate or accidental, can NOT be defended.

[jhfenton]

20. Aren't they all the same

Why nitpick? They are all evil "assault weapons" designed for nothing more than killing as many people as quickly as possible. Or something like that, according to Sens. DeW(h)ine, Kennedy, Schumer, etc.

[DarkPhenyx]

25. Correct...

...that is an error. But the statement stands as revised to say that teh XM-15 is a version of the M-16 rifle, a standard issue military rifle.

[jhfenton]

28. Revised by whom? You? Us?

The author hasn't revised the statement.

[DarkPhenyx]

38. Corrected for it's errors.

Please try and not be completely obstructionist. unless that is your goal in which case it mearly says that you can't defend your position honestly and are resorting to less than honest tactics to win.

[beevul]

50. Thats funny...

"you can't defend your position honestly and are resorting to less than honest tactics to win."

The above statement describes EXACTLY what the author of the article is doing.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

71. Please explain...

what am I being an ass about?


Is expecting ones oponent to have correct facts and use them being an ass or being dishonest?

[DarkPhenyx]

73. No, it isn't.

However expecting it from them, and then not reciprocating is. If you demand that they be as correct and factual as possible then you must be willing to accept the facts they do use. If they have a valid point in their argument then you must accept it. The MX-15 is a varient on a military issue weapon. Once you boil down the rhetoric and mistakes in the argument presented that is still the underlying statement. By saying that bcause there are errors in the statements so the entire argument is wrong, when you know that it is not, is dishonest.

[beevul]

86. Hallf truth...

"Once you boil down the rhetoric and mistakes in the argument presented that is still the underlying statement."

If...IF - you believe it to be an honest mistake by someone who is unbiased, as opposed to deliberate fear mongering to support an agenda, you might have a point. I don't believe that. Even if it IS an honest mistake, the author has a RESPONSIBILITY in being correct.

"By saying that bcause there are errors in the statements so the entire argument is wrong, when you know that it is not, is dishonest."

The entire argument was never proven right to begin with. Not that there really is one once you "boil down the rhetoric and mistakes in the argument". I think the point of most people pointing out the mistakes and rhetoric, was that except for mistakes and rhetoric, there really isn't any argument.

"If you demand that they be as correct and factual as possible then you must be willing to accept the facts they do use."

Um, no. I really believe you need to rethink that statement, say, after applying it to *.

[DarkPhenyx]

88. I do apply it to Bush. On every issue.

Waht was your point?

Now, on the subject at hand you still say that the MX-15 is not a varient of rifle issued to the US Military?

[beevul]

96. The subject at hand...

was a post about a column written by someone who CLEARLY has incorrect information, in a position of RESPONSIBILITY to his readers to have correct information.


He writes the article in such a way as to lead people to wrong conclusions. Just for instance...



"The Bushmaster, a version of the military's standard AK-47 rifle, was the kind of gun they had in mind: highly accurate, extremely deadly from almost a half-mile away."

" This will make it possible for gunmakers to return their products to their full monty of killing power: more bullets per clip, more thrust per squeeze."

"Knowing this much helps to understand why, when Malvo and Muhammad were killing people from 500 yards during that summer and fall"

Now, if you correct the mistakes/smoke and mirrors AND take into account a little reality, there is no point to the article except fearmongering to further an agenda.

[DarkPhenyx]

97. Which we already corrected for.

After that the underlying premise is still true. That the weapon in question is a varient of a military issue weapon.

[beevul]

104. Correct all you like.

The SUBJECT of this thread was the INACCURACY of the COLUMN. Correcting the inaccuracies is pretty much...um...changing the subject.


Do you understand now?

[DarkPhenyx]

105. Do you admit that the MX-15...

...is a varient of a military issue rifle?

[beevul]

Not that it matters...

but no I do not. The MX-15 is probably a missile or something. The XM-15 is a dumbed down version of a military rifle.

Pretty much every firearm in existance is a variant of a military firearm, or was at one time. So what?

What does that matter, that just proves that the column in question was inaccuracte and misleading, as the original poster implied.

Once again, The subject of this thread was the inaccuracies of the article, not how to correct them.

[jimsteuben]

114. Attention: there is no "MX-15" rifle

DarkPhenyx keeps referring to an "MX-15" rifle. No such animal. There is, however, an XM-15 rifle which is a version of the AR-15. By contrast, the M-16 is a fully auto version of the the AR-15. It is not at all like the AK-47.

Vitello writes: "The Bushmaster, a version of the military's standard AK-47 rifle, was the kind of gun they had in mind: highly accurate, extremely deadly from almost a half-mile away."

Half a mile away? With an AR-15? Does the writer even know that half a mile equals 880 yards? Forgive me, but anyone who has ever shot the kinds of rifles under discussion would know that the writer simply does not know what he is talking about.

Recapping, there is no rifle as the "MX-15."
The AR-15 is not a civilian version of the AK-47.
The AK-47 itself is neither as accurate nor as powerful as your typical deer-hunting rifle (e.g., Remington 700).
An AR-15 is not the rifle anyone knowledgeable would pick out in order to hit a target at 800 yards.

If the issue at hand were stem cell research or cloning instead of guns, what would we think of someone who consistently confuses RNA with DNA?

[slackmaster]

116. That does it

I'm going to name my next homebuilt rifle the "Slackmaster Arms MX-15".

:freak:

[Columbia]

117. To be fair

A M16A2 service rifle is technically effective at a range of 800 meters for an area target, which is "almost" half a mile.

So, it could be said that if the shooter was very proficient, s/he could hit a side of a barn at "almost" half a mile.

"Highly accurate" and "extremely deadly" at that range though?

No way.

[DarkPhenyx]

128. Oh, wow! I kept typing something wrong.

gee, isn't that just something to invalidate everything I've ever said in my life.

Honestly! You can't do any better than that?

[Columbia]

130. Still waiting for you to...

Send prohibited items that you don't need to me.

and

Answer the questions in post 103 about the combat qualifications you say you have.


Thanks!

[DarkPhenyx]

132. Give me a list of prohibited items.

Oh, you mewan that useless crap you sent a couple days ago? Nevermind, I don't need it again. I've had enough useless crap already today.

5 1/2 years with service during three conflicts. How about you? Oh, and I am still on reserve status.

Now I am sure this is a stupid question about "how did you fire an AK in combat". I, of course, didn't. I said "under combat conditions". Big freakin difference there. Not surprised, from the level of some of these posts, that folks missed that little subtlety.

[Columbia]

133. Ok then.

"Oh, you mewan that useless crap you sent a couple days ago?"

If it's so useless and unnecessary, why do you have them? I'm just trying to point out that in a free society, there should be no justification of need for ownership of things. If the government wants to limit ownership of certain items, it is their responsibility to provide concrete justification for prohibition of these items and a damn good reason for limiting the liberty of its citizens.

"1/2 years with service during three conflicts. How about you? Oh, and I am still on reserve status."

Three conflicts eh? Do you mind expanding your description to which ones? I'm not quite the super-action hero you are, I've only served in one - Iraq.

"Now I am sure this is a stupid question about "how did you fire an AK in combat". I, of course, didn't. I said "under combat conditions". Big freakin difference there. Not surprised, from the level of some of these posts, that folks missed that little subtlety."

To me, there is no other "combat condition" other than combat itself. Despite the "train as you fight" mantra, war is still quite a different experience than a training exercise.

[DarkPhenyx]

134. No, no, no...

...your post was useless crap.

Who said we live in a free society? News flash for you. We don't. Not a completely free one at any rate. The Gov't did provide reasoning for the restriction. You simply do not agree with it. However it does exist. Now it becomes imcumbant on you to prove that your need outweighs their reasons. SO far noone has sucessfully done so. Not even the person who PM'd me after the last round.

Yes, I do mind telling you. It isn't particularly germaine to the topic, and I really don't feel like it.

Gee...and you know so much about combat too. Wow. Impressive. And, apparently, precious little about training, or what "combat conditions" means. Tha's cool though. It isn't the funniest thing I've heard today.

[Columbia]

135. No need to get snippy

"Who said we live in a free society? News flash for you. We don't. Not a completely free one at any rate."

I kind of agree with you here. In a free society we wouldn't be required to provide a need to have or do certain things. It is in an authoritarian, fascist regime that demands such prior approval.

"The Gov't did provide reasoning for the restriction. You simply do not agree with it. However it does exist."

Really? What reasoning is this? I listening to the proceedings for the AWB renewal amendment to S.1805. All I heard were propagation of lies about already regulated AK-47's and UZI's being let out "on the streets" and how no one needs a machine gun to go duck hunting. Perhaps you can enlighten us on any shred of evidence that the AWB improved public safety in any way whatsoever.

"Now it becomes imcumbant on you to prove that your need outweighs their reasons. SO far noone has sucessfully done so. Not even the person who PM'd me after the last round."

Actually, all we have to do is show that those so-called "reasons" are without merit. Additionally, we've already shown you cases where people have used military pattern semi-automatic rifles to defend themselves, such as when Korean shopowners used them to fend off looters during the LA riots. Of course, you were just fine with leaving them defenseless and their livelihoods destroyed.

"Yes, I do mind telling you. It isn't particularly germaine to the topic, and I really don't feel like it."

I just thought two veterans could share their stories and experiences together and learn something from each other, but if you don't feel like it, that's ok.

"Gee...and you know so much about combat too. Wow. Impressive. And, apparently, precious little about training, or what "combat conditions" means. Tha's cool though. It isn't the funniest thing I've heard today."

Well, since you are a veteran of three wars, I thought you'd be able to give us some more insight on the area instead of mocking my statement. Apparently not.

[DoNotRefill]

131. That's like saying a Yugo is a Ferrari variant....

To a certain extent it's true (they're both cars) but in practical terms it's preposterous.

[Romulus]

72. way to go over the top

(shakes head)

(the following is preserved for the probable deletion of post)

"So how does that justify..."
Posted by DarkPhenyx
...your being an equally large and dishonest ass?

[slackmaster]

61. Based on the phylogeny of the rifles I disagree

Both the present-day post-ban Bushmaster rifles and the various versions of the military M16 and M4 rifles are descended from the original AR-15 rifle of the late 1950s. It was developed with the intention of marketing it to the US military, but it was born in the private sector. Many modifications were made to the prototype AR-15 before it was accepted as a US military weapon.

http://www.ar15.com/content/history/birth.html

[DarkPhenyx]

77. It is still a varient on the rifle...

...issued to the U.S. Military.

Playing symantics is no more honest a way to debate.

[slackmaster]

92. I was just throwing out some information that might be of interest

Not trying to play semantic games.

Do what you wish with the information I presented. The fact remains that the article under discussion erroneously described them as variants of the AK-47.

[DarkPhenyx]

99. Yes it did...

...but correctly identified them as a varient of a military issued rifle.

[jhfenton]

100. The author made two points in that statement

You are focusing on the fact that the XM-15 is a variant of a military rifle. That's arguably correct.

We're focusing on the fact that he also characterized it as a variant of an AK-47, a weapon that has the reputation of being the weapon of choice of terrorists world wide. Throwing AK-47's into the story is a scare tactic pure and simple, in this case, a dishonest one. The author did it for the same reason that Sen. Feinstein and other senators stand up and lie, saying that allowing the SLSAR (scary-looking semi-automatic rifle) ban to sunset will allow AK-47's back on the street.

[DarkPhenyx]

107. yes, yes, yes...

we are all willing to admit taht the MX-15 isn't an AK varient. I thought we had already covered taht.

Thank you for admiting that the MX is a MIR varient. You are the first one with enough intestinal fortitude to take that step.

[FeebMaster]

108. It's XM. (nt)

...

[DarkPhenyx]

127. Oooo, a typo!

Now tht something ou odn't see here evrydya.

[FeebMaster]

129. Just pointing it out. (nt)

[DoNotRefill]

137. BTW...It's VARIANT....

VARIANT....You misspelled it repeatedly, so I doubt it's a typo.

The spell check's there for a reason.

[DarkPhenyx]

3. And the same rifle in my hands wouldn't have killed anyone.

Funny how that works.

[MrBenchley]

6. Sez you...

I'd rather not take the chance.

[jhfenton]

7. Too bad, then.

I already have one.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FatSlob]

49. I have two.

One is an A3 style carbine, the other is a heavy barrel A2 style.

[FeebMaster]

83. Heavy Barrel?!

Don't you know that's the barrel of choice of criminals? You Monster!

[DarkPhenyx]

9. We already know that...

...you have a fairly blind and one sided view on gun issues. Same thing goes for most of the pro-gun lobby.

It is unfortunate you seem adverse to risk and chance. W/o both you can't make any progress at all. Caution has it's place, but it is definately no substitute.

[MrBenchley]

13. Hey, it's the RKBA crowd pimping for extremists

and calling Democrats "evil", just as its the same bunch posting every bit of right wing horeseshit they can find.

But it's hilarious to hear you trying to pass off arming thugs as "progress." By that measure, Ted Nugent is Thomas Edison.

[DarkPhenyx]

16. You enjoy speaking for people don't you?

Please show me where I said we should arm thugs.

You don't think that people who want to ban all guns are extremists?

[MrBenchley]

26. Hey, tell us who it is, then

pissing and moaning anytime anyone discusses closing the gun show loophole. It sure isn't the gun control adherents fighting to let thugsd and nutcases bypass background checks.

[DarkPhenyx]

40. Reactionary rhectoric. Nothing more.

Try arguing with logic and not rhetoric and you might make more headway in your debates on this issue.

[MrBenchley]

42. That's all the RKBA crowd's arguments add up to--rhetoric and horseshit

And it's not worth making headway with folks who are sitting around pissing and moaning about exactly which gun was being copied by the scummy gun industry when they armed the Beltway snipers....other than to point out how extrremist and absurd that concern is.

[DarkPhenyx]

69. And their tactics justify you...

...you being jsut as big an uninformed and reactionary ass?

[MrBenchley]

75. Gee, I'm not the one

trying to pretend that gun nut trivia invalidates this excellent column...

[demsrule4life]

78. I heard today that Comedy Central

was looking for new talent.

[MrBenchley]

80. Sign up now, dems...

show them your posts and then tell them your screen name...I'm sure they'll get a huge laugh.

[DarkPhenyx]

81. No...

...however you frequently use the same poor tactics as your opposition.

[MrBenchley]

82. Gee, then don't use them

but I doubt the RKBa crowd will....

[DarkPhenyx]

84. Dosen't matter.

Just because China isn't likely to give up torture in the near future dosen't mean I want my country to start using it.

[MrBenchley]

93. Funny...it's pro-gun people like John AshKKKroft pushing for that

Fenton's favorite, the Nazional Review has been pimping for torture pretty consistently.

[DarkPhenyx]

98. As usual...

...you have decided to abandon logic, any semblance of a debate, and simply wish to rant on. Feel free. It's amusing.

[MrBenchley]

101. What logic was there TO respond to?

I yet to se anything from you but a series of preposterous statements, each further afield than the last. And considering they started with an absurd attempt to describe uncontrolled sales of assault weapons as "progress".....

[DarkPhenyx]

106. Please show me where I said that.

If you can't then I would like for you to publicly retract your assertion.

[MrBenchley]

109. Who ARE you trying to kid?

Go back to post number nine--the "risk and chance" under discussion is the risk posed by unfettered sales of assault weapons and the chance that we might have to suffer more Beltway sniper type shootings...which you seemed to think would be some sort of "progress."

[jhfenton]

110. That's not what DP said...

...and you know it. I don't know what you're trying to prove by making such obviously absurd claims.

[MrBenchley]

112. It's exactly what he said, fenton..

[beevul]

111. Bench...

you need to read a bit slower or something, DP is on the side of restricting AW's.

Seeing you attack him is humorous, don't get me wrong(no offense DP)but hes on YOUR side.

[MrBenchley]

113. Who ARE you trying to kid, beev?

Show us anything that says he's for the assault weapons ban. Or ask him yourself.

[FeebMaster]

115. Are you kidding?

Oh, that's right. You weren't here during the need wars.

[MrBenchley]

118. So let's see a link, feeb.....

[FeebMaster]

120. I think this was the thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x40743

Thanks for dredging up painful memories.

[jhfenton]

121. Here's two

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x40993

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x40743

[MrBenchley]

124. And in this thread he's implying he's got one

"DarkPhenyx  (1000+ posts)
3. And the same rifle in my hands wouldn't have killed anyone.
Funny how that works."

[beevul]

125. *Laughs*

Please, tell me that your arguing that DP is against the AW ban. Please please please.

It would really make my day.

[beevul]

122. For those on dial-up...

post number 2...

"DarkPhenyx (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-18-04 10:01 AM
Response to Original message

2. Because there is no need for the weapons.


As they serve no real need or purpose, and the potential benefit to the public great enough, the ban should not only stand but be strengthened."

chuckle.

[beevul]

119. An image of...

a Large mouth with an even larger foot stuck in it comes to mind.

[DarkPhenyx]

126. Oh Jesus-H-Christ

Nice misreading of someones post. Time to begin ignoring you. You definately are not interested in debate. Just wanting to rant about your own mypoic view of reality gets very boring.

[beevul]

87. You should read back in J/PS a few weeks back before...

putting the cart before the horse.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. We have had guns that can shoot far for hundreds of years

Hell, Malvo could have been using a Kentucky long rifle and still made the shots he made. The difference is people didn't used to sit around and kill random strangers like that.

[MrBenchley]

8. The clap's been around for longer than that

doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything to stop its spread or cure it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. It means you can't stop it by banning guns

The problem is the person willing to pull the trigger, not the gun.

[jhfenton]

12. High-capacity newspaper columns

Let's see, he says the AK-47 is the military's standard rifle. Strike one.

They were killing people from 500 yards. Not even close. The shots were all from short distances. Strike two.

An AR-15 is a "sniper rifle." Strike three. I thought it was an "assault weapon?" They should keep their lies straight.

"But with a few modifications - a change of barrel size, a different bolt - the maker was able to legalize its product and keep selling it, despite the ban." Lies, lies, lies. Strike four. The ban on scary-looking semi-automatic rifles doesn't address barrel sizes or bolts.

"in an election year, no one wants it on record that he or she voted for every American's right to shoot people's heads off from 500 yards." Sheesh. More lies. What was this guy smoking?

This guy must have been using an assault computer capable of spray-firing lies from the hip. Perhaps we should ban columns containing more than 10 lies. Because, as we know, it's the 11th lie that'll get you.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

21. Gee, fenton....are you pretending the entire RKBA crowd

isn't going to piss and moan about this excellent column?

So far I think every "enthusiast" on board has started wringing their hands and moaning.

[demsrule4life]

24. So the news media has a right to lie

for their agenda? No wonder I don't buy papers anymore.

[MrBenchley]

29. Yeah, dems...

and you've been prevented from posting right winng horseshit and slanfering Democrats too.

[demsrule4life]

31. I take it then it is ok for the press to lie

alrightttttty

[FatSlob]

55. Amazing

The authoritarian crowd thinks a column full of lies is excellent.

[DarkPhenyx]

18. You are wrong.

The AK-47 is a standard military rifle. Just not ours. Please try and keep your rhetoric straight.

[jhfenton]

22. You are wrong.

He said "the" military, not "a" military. That refers to "the" U.S. military. Not to mention, that the XM-15 is a version of the AR-15/M-16, not a member of the Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) family. If you come over for a visit, I can show you the difference.

[DarkPhenyx]

36. I know the difference.

I have fired the difference, in combat conditions. have you?

Now, you were hyping that the AK is not a std issue mil rifle. This is not a true statement. You know that.

Now, that being said the XM-15 is a version of the std issue military rifle of the United states Army. since it is a version of the M-16. If you want to nit pick statements we can do that all day long. It still won't help you prove nay argument you want to make. It dosen't help your case at all.

[beevul]

45. The point, DP,...

is that the author of the article is either biased and willfully using misinformation, in which case he should be reguarded as the gun grabbing monkey he is,

OR

the author made serious mistakes in the article and didn't bother to check his facts..

Or choice number 3. All of the above plus the author couldn't find his/her ass with both hands.

I'll vote choice number 3.

I guess factual correctness is unimportant as long as it suits a particular agenda?

[DarkPhenyx]

67. Factual correctness is important.

Now, having made those corrections what is wrong with the statement?

Are you willing to tell me that the RKBA groups don't use selsetive presentation of the facts to bolster their arguments?

Aren't you better served, as a gun owner, by correcting this persons misinformation and better educating him on guns than by insulting and deriding him therby further alienating him from your side?

[beevul]

74. Theres a huge difference between...

selective presentation of CORRECT facts versus outright lies.

I might ask, how can one who clearly has an anti-gun agenda be "further alienated" from the RKBA cause?

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

89. You crack me up.

"Refusing to accept the data when presented make you an idiot."

"If you demand that they be as correct and factual as possible then you must be willing to accept the facts they do use."

You say things like the above, then try to frame them on the assumption that theres data to be acknoledged from the original article. There isn't. Its baseless fearmongering, directed at people who don't know any better.

[DarkPhenyx]

90. So that statement that the MX-15...

...which has already been identified as a varient of the AR-15 series of rifles and not the AK family, is not a varient of a rifle which is currently standard issue for the United States military.

[Columbia]

103. I'd be interested in your report on the efficacy M16A2 and AK47 in combat

Could you please describe when and which combat theater?

What model of weapon you fired and in what situation?

What was the condition of the weapon?

Did the weapon jam in dirty conditions?

Effectiveness of 5.56 vs 7.62 against human targets?

Thanks in advance.

[beevul]

30. DP...

Hes comparing it to an XM-15 bushmaster which is basically a clone of an AR-15. It fires a .223 round. You know, the one that travels "forever". The AK is a rifle whether select fire, or a semi-auto clone, that fires a 7.62 X 39 round(someone correct me if I am wrong).

From the article...

""You have a driver's license?" said the man at the Long Island store I called yesterday to ask about buying the assault rifle known as the Bushmaster XM-15."

It goes on to say...

"The Bushmaster, a version of the military's standard AK-47 rifle, was the kind of gun they had in mind: highly accurate, extremely deadly from almost a half-mile away."

You can argue he meant some other military than the US, but thats thin, especially when you consider that the XM-15 is not an AK knock off.



Does this look like an AK? Anyone?

http://www.gunblast.com/Bushmaster_XM15.htm

[demsrule4life]

33. Beevul please issue a warning before you post

"gunporn".

[beevul]

35. Its only "gun porn"...

if you have an authoritarian "control fetish".:evilgrin:

[MrBenchley]

39. No, beev, it's gun porn....

which is why the RKBA posts so many threads about this crap..

[DarkPhenyx]

91. We've already discussed these point.

Please try and keep up with the conversation.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

44. I wonder

I wonder why this tripe can go to print. The M-16 is rated as having a maximum range of 800 meters, less than 1/2 mile. Even then only as an indirect fire weapon at that distance. Maximum distance for aimed fire is 550 meters, I believe. An AK-47 would be rated for shorter distances.

The AK-47 is not even remotely similar to the Bushy XM-15, other than the fact that both of them are rifles.

If the AR-15 is so accurate and deadly from half a mile away, why do Marine and Army snipers not use them? The use accurized Remington 700's and M1A1's. Neither use the same 5.56x45mm round the M-16/AR-15 does. They both shoot a much heavier round, the 7.62x51 (~.308 Winchester) popular with precision shooters and hunters.

The ONLY military snipers to my knowledge to employ an M-16 platform are Air Force countersnipers. Even then they are heavily modified, sport magnified optics and use special ammunition. These are NOT rack-grade M-4's.

[MrBenchley]

47. I wonder

how serious a gun fetish somebody has to have to read this column and think it's a discussion of gun specs.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

53. Right

To hell with the facts, just as long as emotions get fired up, right?

[MrBenchley]

60. Only in gun nut land

are the only "facts in the article" unmentioned and utterly irrelevant gun specs.

[beevul]

62. Only in authoritarian "control fetish" land...

do facts take a backseat to the gun grabbing agenda at hand.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

63. The author, not I

mentioned the XM-15 being an AK-47, which is utterly false. I guess next we'll hear about the author taking 'creative license' with the facts?

Here's another gem from the article:
Now, the so-called assault weapons ban - weak and evadable as it is - is due to expire. This will make it possible for gunmakers to return their products to their full monty of killing power: more bullets per clip, more thrust per squeeze.

Magazines (not clips) haven't been in short supply since the ban anyway, so there's a moot point.

And what is with this thrust per squeeze crap? Is the author also insinuating that these rifles magically become fully automatic when the ban sets? See the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Owner's Protection Act of 1986 for further details on full autos.

[MrBenchley]

65. Nothing wrong there...

That's exactly why the "enthusiasts" are creaming their jeans over these guns....

And nobody but the furthest gone fetishist cares which gun the Bushmaster is knocking off.

[beevul]

54. I wonder...

how serious a control fetish somebody has to have to read this column and think it's factually correct.

[jimsteuben]

123. Well, I can tell you then...

Vitello does not correctly discuss gun specs as he is clearly out of his depth in any discussion of ballistics, gun design, or firearms laws. It's rather amusing, kinda like watching some creationist discuss the subject of biology or paleontology, or some LaRouchite on late night TV delivering a lecture about economics, or watching some anti-gun senator from New York refer to a magazine as a "bullet stock."

Call me crazy, but I'd prefer that people who craft firearms law or publicly opine about such things actually know something about the subject matter istead of appeals to emotion.

[CO Liberal]

46. Clueless 101 and Outright Lying 101.

Prerequisites for becoming an NRA spokesperson.

[demsrule4life]

51. So is that an admission

that the NRA along with the Press lie for thier agenda?

[CO Liberal]

102. No

Just a personal belief that the NRA lies whenever and wherever it can.

[MrBenchley]

52. Notice again who the RKBA crowd are defending...

Meanwhile, this is right to the point: "The NRA was so opposed to McCarthy's weapons ban, it was willing to scuttle the Lawful Commerce bill for now, and wait for another shot.
"The president himself says there are terrorist cells at work in this country," she said. "Do we want these people to be able to walk into any gun store?" "

Evidently some people do, while they stroke their stubbies over gun porn.

[Romulus]

64. conveniently forgot the purpose of the DL

The author moans about "only" needing a drivers' license to buy a firearm. But that is the answer to his question: (Sure," I said, "but what else do I need to bring?")

If he actually bothered to go down and try to purchase the rifle, he would have seen that he needed to:

1) fill out the federal registration form
2) fill out the NYS registration form
3) await the background check results, a check that cannot be started without proof of ID, which is given by the DL

This is why crapass chattering-class northeasterners get ridiculed by the rest of the country - and why political candidates associated with that crowd lose national elections.

And further:
"The president himself says there are terrorist cells at work in this country," she said. "Do we want these people to be able to walk into any gun store?" "

How are we to "know" who is on the terrorist watch list without doing the background check? I guess the author figures he can "spot" a terrorist when he sees one, before that terrorist could go through the process I outlined above. Chalk one up for the racial profiling crowd.

[MrBenchley]

66. Too too funny.......

Frankly, the author feels that these guns ought to be off the market. So do most voters.

It's hilarious to see you try to spin closing the gun show loophole into racial profiling. Especially since you don't seem a bit concerned about the racism openly displayed by youur playmates..

[Romulus]

70. Just like the ACLU

Principles are principles.

Especially since you don't seem a bit concerned about the racism openly displayed by youur playmates..

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8100&c=86

"NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide.""

[MrBenchley]

79. Yeah,and racism like Nugent's and Cooper's is racism

but it's wonderful and telling to see the RKBA crowd trying to equate America's scummiest lobbying group with the ACLU, and pretending the ACLU is racist.....

[Romulus]

85. maybe in your mind

it's wonderful and telling to see the RKBA crowd trying to equate America's scummiest lobbying group with the ACLU, and pretending the ACLU is racist

I think you just called me, Romulus, "America's scummiest lobbying group," because I don't see any other person or any org mentioned in this subthread's posts. :eyes: But, then again, it could be a complement on the effectiveness of my sole attempt at lobbying on my own behalf, which could be seen as being as effective as a "lobbying group" since the MD AWB is dead in committee.

And only a less-than-genius could read an ACLU press release as stating that the ACLU is "racist" :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

95. Who are you trying to kid, rom?

Are you really trying to pretend Nugent and Cooper AREN'T racist?

As for Americca's scummiest lobbying group, if you want to climb into bed with the NRA, be my guest. I can't imagine why any decent person would.

[slackmaster]

94. The author's opinion is based on willful ignorance

He's a Bozo, not a journalist.

[slackmaster]

57. What a buffoon!

I'm going to have fun writing up all of Mr. Vitello's misstatements and sending them, uh, somewhere.

WHY does the anti-RKBA side ALWAYS tell lies?

[demsrule4life]

59. They don't tell lies

It is never a lie if it supports their agenda.

[JOE T]

136. This guy doesnt have a clue

Here are the facts:

Well, had Mr. Vitello actually gone to the store to purchase said "semi-automatic military-style sniper rifle" he would have been confronted with a form to fill out for a Federal NICS background check. This check determines if the purchaser has any felony convictions that would preclude him from owning any firearm. Interestingly, this is the instant background check that people such as him were telling us a few years ago would be just fine.

I'm interested in what paperwork he thinks would be available to document he is *not* tied to al-Qaida? Are we all issued "not a terrorist" papers at birth and only have them revoked when we attend a training camp? How about his mental state? Can he truly prove that he his not insane? Well thought out and researched Mr. Vitello.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Bushmaster, a version of the military's standard AK-47 rifle, was the kind of gun they had in mind: highly accurate, extremely deadly from almost a half-mile away.

But with a few modifications - a change of barrel size, a different bolt - the maker was able to legalize its product and keep selling it, despite the ban.

........

(Knowing this much helps to understand why, when Malvo and Muhammad were killing people from 500 yards during that summer and fall, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush saw the shootings not as a gun problem so much as a problem of "values.")"

++++++

Well for starters, the Bushmaster is not a version of the AK-47, nor is the AK-47 the standard of our military, nor is the AK-47 accurate or effective at 1/2 mile (880 yards). Perhaps he should know something about what he speaks of before he makes statements that are just plain ignorant.

As to modifications to "get around" the ban, why is so unimaginable that makers would modify the design to comply with a law to ban cosmetic features of rifles? If a law was passed that made blue cars with grille guards illegal, would it be surprising that new cars would be made in colors other than blue and without grille guards? The ban never was about rifles, it was always about design features that anti-gun zealots felt looked mean.

What do you find so appalling in the Whitehouse statement concerning the killing. Was it not the twisted "values" of a man that would shoot people for the simple statement of shooting people that led to their deaths? Do you honestly think he would have called off his plan to kill random people because a certain model of firearm was not available. Frankly there are any number of rifles used for hunting that would have been far more suited to his despicable task. That of course is not what sells for the anti-gun crowd, they have to hold up scary looking rifles and equate everything to an AK-47 so they can whip up a baning frenzy among the uninformed.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Now, the so-called assault weapons ban - weak and evadable as it is - is due to expire. This will make it possible for gunmakers to return their products to their full monty of killing power: more bullets per clip, more thrust per squeeze. The National Rifle Association has made the end of the ban one of its top priorities."

++++++

What exactly does "more thrust per squeeze" mean? What is that? If as he says the ban has been so ineffective and weak, and thousands of rifles are obviously being produced in spite of it, why is so important to renew it? Senator Feinstein herself tells us that after the ban ATF traces on semi-automatic rifles were down, what was it, 300 percent. How is that possible since manufacturers are flooding the streets with these terrible weapons with only minor modifications? The anti-gun crowd can't even weave their distortion-filled arguments together in a consistent manor. How would fewer round per magazine (not clip) have stopped the DC sniper? It wouldn't have. Were any of Malvo's victims shot 10, 15, 20 times or more? No they were not. Could he not have done his work with a single shot bolt action rifle? Certainly he could have. What if he had used a 30-06 scoped rifle? Would that rifle have been evil too? Were they more dead because they killed with a semi-auto has opposed to a hunting rifle?

Of course Malvo could have used anything and everyone with one whit of common sense knows it. That's why opposition to Mr Vitello's beloved ban is gaining support. It has accomplished nothing. Everyone sees it for what it was intended to be all along, a platform to continue banning guns until there was nothing legal left to own. It's primary supporter flatly admits as much. Flash hiders, pistol grips, and heat shrouds, do not add or subtract from a weapons power. The statement "This will make it possible for gunmakers to return their products to their full monty of killing power" is another total distortion and spoken with complete ignorance or downright malice.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"So, to review just this much: A weak ban on assault weapons is passed in 1994, despite which assault weapons sales flourish. Bush says he will support the ban's extension, but doesn't seem to really mean it. Members of the Republican-controlled House and Senate keep the extension from coming up for a vote; in an election year, no one wants it on record that he or she voted for every American's right to shoot people's heads off from 500 yards."

++++++

Total garbage, the last time I looked nobody in this country has a right to "shoot people's heads off from 500 yards" and nobody cast any such vote. Emotional tirades like this simply make him look like a zealot, and I believe that's just what he is.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is the kind of nonsense that makes me stop reading a paper. If your staff can't be responsible enough to do a little research before publishing a story then why should I believe anything they write. Opinions are one thing, we all have them and they differ. However, lies and distortions are another, and that should not be tolerated. Well, I guess so many of us have come to simply expect this kind of blathering ranting from the press. It's clear that most outlets are not even making the effort to appear unbiased. We'll just chalk this up as another rag I no longer need to read.

[slackmaster]

138. More thrust per squeeze - LOL!

Why does the rabid anti-gun crowd always resort to sexual innuendo as a substitute for logic in their arguments?

:hippie: