Sarah Palin questioned about assault weapons....

Status
Not open for further replies.
My bet on where he got the statistics is a poll that was done in 2003 and asked how many favored renewing the ban. It's the only statistics I can find that seem to match it.

There are a few problems with using that kind of poll as a valid source.
First of all it's an old poll.
Second, the question if people want to keep an existing ban is easier to get a yes on than a question on keeping things as they are now. A lot of people that doesn't have a fixed opinion will tend to keep things as they are.
Third, there is no way of knowing how the question was asked, or who did the poll. If you call up with a line of question that asks about all kinds of gang violence and shootings, you will get scewered results on the last question, that gets publiciced.

For those of you that havent seen it, I recommend this scene from the classic Yes Prime Minister:
Getting the results you want from the polls.
 
Another thing if you google around a bit and read peoples opinions, is that most people have no idea what an "assault weapon" is. They call it machine guns, they claim it's all semiautomatic weapons, they claim it's not for hunting etc..

If you show people an SKS or mini-14 they will most likely say it's not an assault weapon, but they will not be able to tell you why they aren't and a AK or M16 is.

Show people an SKS or Mini-14, and they will most likely not be able to tell you why they sh

I'm betting that 90% of those that are for the ban doesnt even know what it is against, they just have a vague idea that it's against weapons that look like an AK or M16.

If you show them an M1 Garand, an SKS, or a Mini14, they will say it's not an assault weapon, but they will not be able to tell you what the difference is between those and an M16 or AK, more than the looks.

I had one guy that couldn't tell the difference between automatic or semiautomatic, and when told he wanted to ban all semiautomatic because "you can fire once for every pull of the trigger", which of course would inclide any pistol, including revolvers... Because, revolvers fire again by pulling the trigger again...

People dont know about it, and that makes them easy targets for a good campaign that muddies the facts, and gives leading poll questions.
 
Overall, her interview was a dissaster, though Gibson was fair. He could not softball this one, at the same time he gave her an opportunity to respond. She blew it on several points on foreign policy and I think that they need to send her to foreign policy boot camp.

Regarding the assault weapon issue, her response was strong and simple. It was a good response. Personally, I would have liked her to have asked Gibson to precisely define the phrase assault rifle. She then would have had an opportunity to point out how the definition is varialble and hard to define in a legal sense. That would have knocked Gibson on his heels.
Mauserguy
 
I'm betting that 90% of those that are for the ban doesnt even know what it is against, they just have a vague idea that it's against weapons that look like an AK or M16.

We have a winner, folks.

I have personally had an anti tell me that the AWB was about fully auto machine guns. She seriously believes that you can go in to any old gun store and buy a real full auto AK47 for a couple hundred bucks and walk out the same day, no paperwork, no background check, no nothing. At the time I had this conversation I lived in Illinois, which is even more stringent than the US gun laws. So I said, "If you really believe that, let's go to a gun store right now and you can show me." Her reply, "I don't go in to gun stores."

Personally, I would have liked her to have asked Gibson to precisely define the phrase assault rifle.

I was thinking the same thing. Only I wouldn't have said the definition was "variable," I would have said that it is a propaganda term that has no meaning other than "whatever gun someone wants to ban today."
 
I believe that stat was accurate. If you go around and ask people (uninformed) if they want "assualt weapons" banned of course they would say yes. They would also agree with a ban on sledgehammers if I refered to them as brain bludgeoners. It is all in how it is stated.

Take that same 70% out shooting with "Assault" rifles and "hunting" rifles and clearly point out the differences (hardly any) and that %70 would turn into a %20.
 
This is one example of how the media is biased. Have you ever heard someone from the MSM ask a question is a way that does not first state the liberal slant as normal. No matter what the topic is. Could you imagine someone saying " How can the assault weapons ban be implimented and NOT infringe on the 2nd amendment right of all Americians". Or " Should not the goal be in this Free country or ours to get as many people off off welfare and entiletlements so they can be responsible and make good decisions on their own for thier lives? instead of so and so million people do not have this or that. My examples may not be the best but you get the idea.
 
So I said, "If you really believe that, let's go to a gun store right now and you can show me." Her reply, "I don't go in to gun stores."
Heh, try adding a bet.:)
I've done that on occasion, just to mess with them when they think they know something. Usually it's a huge bet, like "OK, let's bet $1000 that you cant do that." If they refuse, I usually double or tripple it, just to mess with them, then I question their sanity for refusing making so easy money when they "know" it's so simple to win.
 
by XD-40 Shooter :
I think she gave a good answer to the assault weapon question, considering Charlie's confrontational and condescending attitude. She defended the 2nd Ammendment, talked about criminals not obeying laws anyway, and the fact that gun control laws only affect the law abiding.

You got it right. I just re-watched the interview, in Sarah's living room in Alaska, and she said exactly what XD-40 Shooter said that she said. She also mentioned that she is an NRA life member.

Charlie Gibson was very combative and tried to trap her many, many times but only succeded once when he asked her about a little known thing called the "Bush Doctrine". It was pretty obvious that she was caught off-guard with that and didn't know what it was. After the interview, many in congress were asked about it and many didn't know either. In fact, according to several sources, there are 6 separate (or seven, depending on who you interview) "Bush Doctrines". It was a trick question and one that simply can't be answered specifically.

All in all, I think she presents herself extremely well. I wish I could do half as well.
 
i saw some sort of ridiculously edited version of the interview....what i suspect most americans saw.....apparently, it was VERY deliberately edited, because in it, she did not even respond to the question; all she did was go on about hunting and traditions in alaska, which had nothing to do with the issue. in fact, i see now that the whole interview was likewise hatcheted. i want to see more bulldog out of her specifically on the issue of the 2nd amendment. i'm tired of politicians that don't know, and don't care enough about it.

in regard to the two members here that could not help but to chime in with utterly senseless posts highlighting how they think the thread is political.....please put a huge, permanent sock in it. aside from the fact that this thread is SPECIFICALLY addressing a 2nd amendment issue, i feel confident that we can trust in the judgment of site administrators to determine the appropriateness of content, and neither of you is an administrator. i don't feel led to post often, but i look regularly, and there is nothing more frustrating than seeing people with apparently way too much time on their hands attempting to derail threads by passing judgment on content when they have not been tasked to do so.
 
in regard to the two members here that could not help but to chime in with utterly senseless posts highlighting how they think the thread is political.....please put a huge, permanent sock in it. aside from the fact that this thread is SPECIFICALLY addressing a 2nd amendment issue, i feel confident that we can trust in the judgment of site administrators to determine the appropriateness of content, and neither of you is an administrator. i don't feel led to post often, but i look regularly, and there is nothing more frustrating than seeing people with apparently way too much time on their hands attempting to derail threads by passing judgment on content when they have not been tasked to do so.

True, but most members here are smart enough to know when a thread crosses into the political realm. Members pointing out that a thread is becoming political is usually just a heads up to other members that they need to watch what they say and how they say it. Threads can turn political and hostile very quickly around here.

As for my reaction to her interview. I don't agree with the statistics thrown at her, I'd like to see real data that shows these figures in a balanced and fair poll. As for Palin herself, I respect her views on gun rights, I just wish there were more issues I agreed with her on. However talking about her as a politician is crossing that invisible political thread line and I'm not going there.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Gibson was very combative and tried to trap her many, many times but only succeded once when he asked her about a little known thing called the "Bush Doctrine". It was pretty obvious that she was caught off-guard with that and didn't know what it was. After the interview, many in congress were asked about it and many didn't know either. In fact, according to several sources, there are 6 separate (or seven, depending on who you interview) "Bush Doctrines". It was a trick question and one that simply can't be answered specifically.
That's what investigative journalist are supposed to be doing! Though since 911 they've been on vacation apparently.
Just think how things would be today had they just done their jobs rather than capitulating to the rah, rah!
Whether the subject is guns or some other issue they have an obligation to uncover the real facts and effects of the dealings of those who would subvert this democracy for their own vested interested.
Sadly, they have failed of late!

CRITGIT
 
And even if 70% wanted to ban assault weapons, what ever happened to 'minority rights'????
 
78% of the population could correctly describe:

"semiautomatic"
"assault weapon" (not that there IS a definition, really)

???

In whose fantasy world?

Does 78% of the population know how to change the oil in their cars? Do they know what a Torx driver is? Do they even know which way a standard SCREW tightens, particularly without whispering "rightie-tightie, leftie-loosey" to themselves?

I'd bet they don't.
 
normally when people talk about the assault weapon ban it is all scare and bluster.

Frequently I refute them by asking "So now that the ban is gone, what do you think the process is for buying one?" to which they say "I don't know"

If the steps taken and precautions already enacted by law are explained and then the question is asked, you get a much different response


Here is how I explain it
#1 you go to a guy who is checked out by the Feds, and who must keep meticulous records.
#2 He can only sell you the type that shoots one bullet per pull of the trigger.
#3 Before he can sell it to you, he checks your ID and records a bunch of info,
#4 then calls in your name so they can check and make sure oyu are not a felon, violent criminal, nutcase, or wifebeater. #5 Mention even obliquely any sort of crime like "my ex wife will be sorry about those divoce papers!" and the sale is off.

I do 5 points as I can extend my hand with fingers out and fold them back in. This lets people know I am not going to ramble forever. Most people will listen to 5 susinct points.

I also head them off at the pass with the statement "Now, I suppose in theory the guy could have committed a crime friday night and maybe on monday the info isn't in the system yet, but I consider that extremely unlikely"

and then we can talk about how most people who commit serious crimes just don't snap one day and go ballistic, but instead have a pattern of escalating behavior, so they will show up on the check. If they stick with the 'yea but MAYBE the guy will go off just because' I can say 'well yea MAYBE a cop will go off just because too, maybe even more likely due to job stress. Should we take their guns away too? Maybe a driver will flip out and crash his car into a line of people outside a nightclub because his girl cheated on him, lets outlaw cars too, right?
 
Sarah Palin will stand firmly behind 2nd Amendment rights. The Charlie Gibson interview was an attempt by liberal left to trick her into saying something stupid or to demonstrate that she is "not qualified" to be vice president. Shame on you Charlie Gibson. You dropped a bit in my view of your balanced approach to politics and issues. No matter how you paint the words, Palin has more experience then Obama. Things cut both ways....
 
Gibson is a bottom feeding scum bag paid by the liberal media to be a bottom feeding scum bag. Why would we expect anything less (or better) from him? Sarah Palin will get my vote now, and again in 4 years as VP or as President. She is smart, quick thinking, conservative and freedom loving. She is everthing that the libs hate and fear. Let's all roll out the vote, and give the lying scuzz bucket socialists something to really fear. (It's call freedom and liberty!)
 
At one point he said,"Seventy eight percent ( or about that number) of Americans would like to see semi-autimatic assault weapons banned"

Seventy eight percent of all statistics are just made up numbers.
 
remember anytime people do surveys the results can easily be manipulated.

Sarah Palin should have just asked for actual references in the interview. It would also need to be a peer reviewed journal reference, or else it's not the trust worthy. Regardless, the ATF says that hardly any of the gun crimes are committed using assault style semi-automatic firearms. The ATF also uses "assault style semi-automatics" instead of "assault weapons", because most firearms that people call assault weapons are not by definition "assault weapons".
 
It is a shame how low the national democratic party has gone, considering many state level Democrats have pushed for firearm law reforms, including the liberalization of handgun license/permit process. I am almost of the opinion that if the state levels still want to back up a national level gun grabber for president, they still won't get my vote.
 
"Gibsons is a Democrat shill and in no way represents fairness." Correct.

The entire so-called "main stream media" are no less than the propaganda dept of the Democrat Party.

Gibson is an entrenched member of the MSM. Collectively, they love to repeat questionable "poll" numbers "proving" Bush is hated and his approval numbers are the lowest ever. Okay, maybe, but they rarely mention that Bush's approval is over twice as good as that of the Democrat controlled congress. And they NEVER mention that the approval of the MSM is worse than that of congress! It seems we have a lot more public support for out-lawing congress and the MSM than for any frivilous laws against "semi-auto assault rifles"!
 
I would say these unfounded firearm related statistics probably came from the place most unfounded firearm statistics come from: The Unfounded Firearm Statistics Factory (aka Brady Campaign)

I'd say about 75% of the people I know would love to have an assault rifle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top