I am currently doing research for a persuasive speech for my college speech class on why the assualt weapons ban was a failure and why we should stop meaningless gun legislation....btw...if any of you fine gentlemen have some ideas, statics(with references), or have done something similar before, please post about it.
Anyways, my post today was to show this website...
Notice they don't even understand the differences between preban and postban...the preban AR doesn't have a bayonet lug or collapsable. Notice they sitck longer mags in two of the post ban guns. I hate this stupid gun propaganda!!! :fire: :banghead: :fire:
P.s. Forgive my ignorance, but what does Molon Labe stand for exactly?
If you enjoyed reading about "Ridiculous Anti-gun misinformation..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
November 18, 2004, 01:02 PM
If you look on the left hand side right above where they promise to keep you inform3ed and up to date, they tell you that you have two months to act before the assault weapons ban ends:
67 Days until the federal assault weapons ban ends--unless President Bush and Congress act.
I think they are missing something.
November 18, 2004, 01:40 PM
"You are either for assault weapons on our streets, or against assault weapons on our streets."
Really? Well then I guess I'm FOR assault weapons on our streets [sic]. What ignorant bigots.
November 18, 2004, 02:13 PM
I think it's more likely they're using an absolute value function, and that the ban actually expired 67 days ago.
Either way, though, it shows they don't update their site often.
November 18, 2004, 02:17 PM
The best is in their banner they have 2 post ban bushmaster carbines.
November 18, 2004, 02:19 PM
Molon Labe: Click Me (http://www.thefiringline.com/HCI/molon_labe.htm)
November 18, 2004, 06:01 PM
Sorry, but that's not misinformation, which is accidental. That's disinformation, which is deliberate. In plain English, it's lies.
It's not a prima facie response to the idea of gun control, but it is powerful ammo in your arsenal. ;)
November 18, 2004, 07:37 PM
According to their logic any manufacturer that re-designs any product in the face of new legislation is "circumventing" the law. With the amount of comsumer "protection" type laws passed, there wouldn't be much to buy out there.
November 18, 2004, 09:05 PM
Don't you circumvent the law when you drive exactly what the speed limit signs say? The liberals think you are using a loophole to avoid getting a speeding ticket!
November 18, 2004, 09:27 PM
Here is one idea, from a letter I wrote to a reporter who ranted about gun makers "using loopholes to evade the law." You may use it as you wish. I have x'd out the reporter's name.
A news story, fictional:
"Bank robbery is against the law, at both the federal and state level, and most of those who rob banks are arrested by the F.B.I. or local police and brought to justice. But Mary xxxxxxxx, by exploiting loopholes in current laws, has managed to elude law enforcement officials and evade capture and imprisonment on charges of bank robbery."
"Ms. xxxxxxxx, who sometimes poses as a news reporter, has escaped capture and thwarted justice due to a combination of circumstances involving corruption of the local police, incompetence at the federal law enforcement level, and the seemingly irrelevant fact that she has not robbed any banks. But, while seeming to obey the law, she has cleverly used a legalistic loophole under which only those who rob banks can be imprisoned for the crime. The readers will be well aware of this kind of clever manipulation of the legal process, used by so many people who loudly proclaim their "innocence" when challenged by a courageous press."
OK, Ms. xxxxxxxxx, that is called pejorative writing. It is used by clever demagogues, writers of polemics, advocates of fringe causes, sophomore journalism students, and Dan Rather. It is, or should be, beneath any responsible journalist. What is the difference between "exploiting a loophole in the law" and "obeying the law"? As you may have noticed in the "story" above, there is none; it is all in the way a writer expresses the idea. I did say that you never robbed banks, and I have written nothing but the absolute truth, but I will bet that nine out of ten readers of those paragraphs would conclude that you are public enemy number one.
In 1994, Congress enacted legislation defining a "semi-automatic assault rifle" as a semi-automatic rifle having more than one of a list of features, and banned the manufacture and importation of those rifles. Those features included bayonet attachments, flash suppressors, and folding stocks. Presumably the law was intended to reduce such crimes as drive-by bayonetings.
So makers of semi-automatic rifles obeyed the law and removed those features, and no "assault rifles", as defined in the law, were made or imported in the next ten years. Semi-automatic rifles were made, but they had none of those features and were not "assault rifles." The makers obeyed the law; there was no "loophole".
Since "assault rifles" had never been used to any significant extent in crime, Mr. Eric Howard's [spokesman for the Brady Campaign, quoted in the article with no attempt made to verify the accuracy of the statement] statement about them being "overwhelmingly favored" by criminals is simply a lie. Once again, a responsible journalist would never accept and report the word of an interested party without checking the facts with an independent and reliable source.
November 18, 2004, 10:47 PM
...if any of you fine gentlemen have some ideas, statics(with references), or have done something similar before, please post about it.
I suggest using the tactic embodied in this website. That is, "Take The High Road". Do not engage your opponents on their terms; do not try to win this debate with endless crime statistics. They will be able to spin statistics also. Instead, argue against the Assault Weapon Ban on the grounds that it violates civil rights. Make the analogy between guns and books (Second and First Amendments). Dismiss their statistics by saying that you would rather live in a society with higher crime (although your opinion is that gun ownership actually reduces crime) and be free, rather than live in a low-crime dictatorship.
I am attaching an e-mail that I sent to several of my liberal friends trying despirately to explain our position. I hope it helps:
I find it peculiar that both you and Amy believe that books are different than Guns because "Guns kill". This makes you an extremist. Most people in the world do believe that books kill, and their ideas Very Dangerous. This is why censorship is rampant throughout most of the world.
Even in the "enlightened" countries of Europe that liberals adore, you are not permitted to own, buy or sell literature not approved by the State. In both Germany and France, for example, Mein Kampf is illegal. France has gone so far as to file criminal charges against Amazon, Yahoo! and Ebay for displaying Nazi-related items (anything with a swastika). William L. Shirer's classic The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich has a swastika on it's cover. Both these countries are attempting to re-write history by controlling the press "because so many people died because of these books". In reality, this censorship is occurring because these goverments want to stay in power.
Liberals in America defend the First Amendment passionately, yet turn a blind eye to the Second Amendment. For example, a few years ago the Denver Police subpoenaed the Tattered Cover for a credit card receipt to implicate a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with intent. The Police Wanted to prove that the man accused was responsible for the meth lab found on his property by proving that he bought two books: Advanced Techniques of Clandestine Psychedelic and Amphetamine Manufacture, and The Construction and Operation of Clandestine Drug Laboratories. Clearly, these books have no purpose other than to facilitate breaking the law. Think of how many people die each year from illegal drugs. Indeed, they are "Assault Books"! Yet the owner of the Tattered Cover, Joyce Meskis, fought the subpeona on the grounds that the Police merely inquiring the names of anyone who purchases a book violates the First Amendment. The courts agreed. Liberals everywhere rejoyced.
Books are dangerous, Religion is dangerous, Speech is dangerous, and Guns are dangerous- if misused. Yet they are all absolute, inalienable Rights. That is why they are in the Bill of Rights.
Yet for some reason Liberals think that it is ok to pick and choose.
November 19, 2004, 05:24 PM
ridiculous as in the ASSAULT weapon 10 year ban?ridiculous in their excuses that passing it to begin with would have any deterrant effect on crime.
criminals are criminals simply because they dont follow laws,passing more laws doesnt deter them,never has and never will.whether or not the gun has a bayonet lug,a retractable stock or even a detachable magazine isnt going to deter criminals...telling a criminal that "no,you cant have this" gun isnt going to deter them.they will steal it...just as they steal other things.
That GOOFY aw law that has expired was nothing more than an attempt to ban guns,either that or the people who had thought it up are so far gone upstairs that even the 30 day course in "basic reasoning" couldnt save them.
Its all about scaring the sheeple and getting the desired effect to get $$ rolling in for the next push to ban guns.the media has gotten sheeple so conditioned to this that now all they need to do is hold aloft a scary "something" in a news confereance to get their gasps...I can almost hear those checks being written now.doesnt matter if it has a bayonet lug or not,if it was on the news and a terrorist was seen with one then they are all bad...their logic is flawed in that people might see through this nonsense as they did this year,they can only repeat the same lie so many times that people get tired of hearing about it...like some ol record skipping again and again.eventually maybe even the sheeple will get out more and see the lie for what it really is.
November 19, 2004, 08:43 PM
I HATE it when people try to ban things they don't know anything about. You don't see me trying ban exhaust systems on 98 Honda accords or anything like that do you? :fire:
November 21, 2004, 12:03 AM
Well, gentlemen. In a conversation with my teacher, she made a point that the only purpose for guns is to kill things. I sort of debated her saying that a stick or car could be a weapon in the "proper" hands. But she then again made the point, "but guns are made purposely for killing" I think my response in the speech will be that guns are made to kill, and that is good. Sometimes killing is necessary for food procurement or for self defense. I practice my shooting skills so that I can be a more effective shot(so I can be better at placing shots under stress) so in the event that my life or the life of a friend family member is in danger, I can help to stop the threat. But, I should also make the point perhaps that it is good to be prepared for medical emergencies as well, so if a friend, stranger or family member is in danger, I can help save them. It has to be an overall attitude of preparedness, not a "I am going to blast bad people and thats good" attitude.
She said guns should have never been invented. But that is sort of like saying the computer should have never been invented. The modern gun is a more effective weapon and hunting tool, just like email and the internet is a better way to exercise your first amendment rights. Hey, even if you argues me into a hole, atleast I know that if someone who is a criminal and has not regard for my life of my families tries to endanger our lives, I will have a better chance of stopping or detering the threat than her, frantically pushing 911, hoping they'll show up before she's dead.
November 21, 2004, 12:25 AM
"...they don't even understand the differences between preban and postban..." That doesn't surprise me. Especially as said ban is gone. A lot of shooters didn't understand it or its provisions either.
"...only purpose for guns is to kill..." Say things like Olympic sport right from the beginning of the Modern Games, wildlife management, preserving history, the vast amount of money put into small town economies and conservation by hunters, taxes paid, etc. It's a no win debate.
If you can take her shooting. A .22 and/or a .38 Special only. Mentioning the fact that women are inherently better shots than men are wouldn't hurt either.
November 21, 2004, 01:16 AM
Sounds to me like your teacher is trying to side track you away from your original thesis. Hopefully it is just to try to motivate you?
You can not seriously expect to affect crime trends by going after statistically irrelevant portions of the total population. Honest people and the number of scary looking guns used in crime simply were not legitimate subjects to focus on. 3% does not make a crime wave!
I wouldn't say that superfluous laws have no effect on crime considering they do breed contempt for the law, not just that stupid law but all laws. If the law is to be a useful tool then it needs to be practical.
This "ban" had a negative effect in reducing the numbers of these types of firearms. I have more semi-auto rifles now than I did ten years ago. The ban sold many semi-auto rifles to people who wanted to get onboard the semi-auto train before it was too late. There's a good chance they never would have purchased one otherwise. Also, take for example the number of magazines in excess of 10 rounds in circulation. I had 4 before "the ban" and ended up with 24 afterwards. Some people have hundreds of these magazines thanks to the ban. Such hoarding was extremely rare prior to this law.
If these things were truly dangerous then we are much much worse off now thanks to the ban. Obviously it was all lies or people would be dropping like flies.
Those are my thoughts. Hope any of that is helpful to you. Raw numbers can be had to support these arguments with a little online searching. I'm kind of burned out on the whole issue myself. :)
November 21, 2004, 11:27 AM
Read the article I posted. It talks all about how the left manipulates words and the public. Might be good stuff for your paper/project.
There are other great comments, posts, and links by other members there also.
November 21, 2004, 12:52 PM
RE: Guns are designed to kill.
That's not true. They're designed to be capable of killing (or more accurately, to be capable of neutralizing an attack, whether that is through incapacitation or otherwise), but their express purpose is not to kill. This is a logical distinction that is difficult for those who employ an intentionally lazy thought process to see, but exists nonetheless. And it makes a large difference in the debate. Guns, and by extension weapons of all types, have a myriad of purposes which are simply brushed aside when it is asserted that their only true purpose exists in the worst possible outcome of their use.
Most of you (probably all of you) have never killed a person with any of your numerous firearms, yet they all serve and continue to serve their purpose--without having killed anyone.
The "guns are designed to kill" agenda is really intellectually dishonest rhetoric which is designed to turn up the contrast on the debate and portray anyone who might seek to obtain a gun as someone who desires to kill other human beings. After all, they're designed to kill, right? Why else would you want one?
People who are poltically in favor of gun control tend to employ abstract thought at almost every opportunity, which is a good thing in most cases. But on the subject of weapons, which requires a large portion of abstract thought, they seem hell-bent on looking at it in the most concrete, polarized fashion as possible. This, IMO, is because they are unwilling to consider what they do not wish to consider.
November 21, 2004, 01:28 PM
I have always been against guns in the street, but yesterday I had an experience that caused me to rethink. You see, I had killed a whitetail doe almost exactly the size of my dog, Oreo (in my defense, she's a big dog) pretty far back in the woods. The farmer on whose land we hunt was generous enough to let us use his four-wheeler to retrieve deer, but there was a problem. You see, I could either walk a mile to the road and then another mile or two to the farmer's house, or I could walk nearly a mile through plowed fields to my uncle (who had the keys to his truck in his pocket) to retrieve the keys, then walk back out to the road and drive to the farmer's house. I chose to walk to the road and then on to the farm, but I'd not thought through what to do with my gun since I couldn't get into the truck. I sure didn't want to be caught walking down the middle of the road during deer season with a shotgun, ammo and no open deer permits!
So I laid my trusty Ithaca down in the tall grass on the field side of the fence. I then walked to the farm, came back, got my deer, cut across and got Uncle' Bob's deer along with Bob, and we got back to the gate just as it began to get truly dark.
The gun was undisturbed, which it certainly would not have been if I had left it on the street (or road in this case,) but very, very wet from lying in the grass as it got colder. There was enough water inside that it dripped when I picked it up. Also there were cows in that field that I hadn't known about, but they apparently were not interested in firearms. I had to clean it pretty thoroughly when I got home.
Now I'm firmly against guns on the street and guns on the grass, but my Congressman hasn't returned my phone call on the issue yet. . . . can't think why.
November 21, 2004, 02:06 PM
Guns are designed to kill. Guns are designed to launch a projectile. Guns are designed to be utilized by a thinking human operator who decides when & where to launch said projectile.
They can do good or evil dependant solely upon the user. It may very well be that 99% of the guns owned by American citizens have never fired a shot in anger but rather for fun as a sporting tool. They are loud. They can be dangerous. They require a higher level of responsiblity.
They represent a part of history. They can be, and many are, a work of art representing the finest thought process of the human mind in design, engineering and manufacturing. Coupled with a projectile they become a study in physics, a transfer of energy, a force with which to reckon.
They represent freedom in the hands of the righteous.
Yes, they can kill; and yes, they can save lives. But only in the hands of a human.
Kinda like a rock. Or a stick of wood.
The AWB? It was all show, smoke and mirrors. A feel-good-do-nothing law which did not remove pre AWB arms from the populace, eliminated a few interesting design features from a few rifles yet left others alone and "Changed the direction of Congress entirely in one fell swoop", almost overnight.
November 21, 2004, 04:33 PM
Here's one good resource:
Rational Basis Analysis of "Assault Weapon" Prohibition [20 J. of Contemp. L. 381-417 (1994)] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/rational.html)
November 21, 2004, 10:04 PM
Dr john Lott wrote the textbook:
The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong
by John R. Lott