Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Mr. Cox is Polite and Calls it "Myths". A Better Word is "Lies"....

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Stephen A. Camp, Feb 3, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Stephen A. Camp

    Stephen A. Camp Moderator In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,430
    "Gun Myths on the Senate Floor
    By Chris W. Cox
    NRA-ILA | Monday, February 02, 2009

    Legislation to require a federal license to possess any detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle or shotgun, or any handgun, has been introduced in Congress. Bills to re-impose the federal "assault weapon" and "large" magazine ban, or to impose a much broader ban, have been introduced in Congress since 2003, and will likely be introduced in the current Congress soon.

    Already, the deliberate deceptions we heard from anti-gunners previously are resurfacing. Anti-gun Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI, said last Thursday on the floor of the Senate that "assault weapons" are "capable of firing up to 600 rounds per minute" and that they are "once again pervading our streets and neighborhoods."

    Did we mention that our opponents are deliberately deceptive?

    Many fully-automatic firearms can fire 10 rounds in a second, which theoretically would work out to 600 rounds per minute, but they cannot be reloaded fast enough to achieve anything near that rate in reality. But we are not talking about fully-automatic firearms—we're talking about semi-automatics, and the difference between them need not be explained here.

    "Pervading our streets?" Anti-gun lawmakers swore up and down that once the "assault weapon" ban expired, the murder rate would go through the roof. Well, the ban expired in 2004 and since then, the murder rate has gone down to a 43-year low.

    The anti-gunners think they can revive this bogus issue, and maybe they can; they will no doubt try. But Congress required a study of the 1994 ban, and the study concluded, "the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a small fraction of gun murders." Violent crime was going down before the ban, and it has continued to go down after the ban. If the issue is looked at objectively, it should be over, done with, water under the bridge. The ban should never have been imposed in the first place, let alone be imposed again or ever expanded.

    And certainly guns should not be banned on the basis of nonsense like Sen. Levin's speech, and other deliberate deception perpetuated by gun ban groups.

    Deliberate deception such as:

    A folding stock makes a rifle concealable, as if it were a pocket knife. But anyone who knows anything about gun laws knows that federal law requires a rifle to be 26 inches long, regardless of its stock, and a 26-inch-long rifle is not concealable.
    A pistol grip is designed to allow a rifle to be fired "from the hip." But the 90 million pistols owned by the American people all have pistol grips, and they aren't designed to be fired "from the hip." Besides that, the fact that a rifle has a shoulder stock and sights mounted on the barrel proves that it is designed to be fired from the shoulder.
    Magazines designed to hold more than 10 rounds are not useful for self-defense. If they really believe that, let them propose to prohibit the military and police from having pistol magazines that hold 12, 15, and 17 rounds.
    These guns are "high-powered." Next time an anti-gunner calls a gun "high-powered," ask him to name one gun that is low-powered. They even call .22 rimfires "high-powered," when they want to brand a .22 as a so-called "assault weapon."

    NRA members who own AR-15s and other so-called "assault weapons," you are not alone. There are nearly two million AR-15s in our country, the same number of M1s, the same number of M1 Carbines, and many more Mini-14s, semi-automatic shotguns, pump-action shotguns, and all the other guns the anti-gunner want to call "assault weapon." Countless millions of American own handguns that use magazines of over 10 rounds.

    Our challenge is to coalesce these Americans into a political force that will make anti-gun lawmakers' heads swim. When they repeat gun ban groups' deliberate deceptions, we must tell the truth; not some of the time, but all of the time! But we cannot wait for them to act, and then only respond in defense. We must be out front. When we carry our message, we must do so confident in the knowledge that we are doing so in a manner that respects our fellow citizens, and their right to disagree--a way of doing business that is alien to our opponents--and that our arguments are based in logic and fact, not deceit."


    ...and the link:

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F8B61CF6-B76A-4613-8AE4-8F58BB04F1F9

    Best.
     
  2. woodybrighton

    woodybrighton member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    791
    Location:
    BRIGHTON
    most non gunners genrally belive an m16 can fire 600 rounds a minute thats what is says in books :banghead:
     
  3. K3

    K3 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,508
    Location:
    Looking through the scope at a coyote
    IMO, it is borderline criminal to talk about AWBs and weapons capable of cyclic fire at rates like 600rpm. People like Levin know damn well that ARs and such can fire at nowhere near that rate, but they also know that most people will buy the lie, as they don't know any better.

    He and his ilk are deliberately lying to an ignorant and unsuspecting flock of sheep that is ready to lap up as much nanny state protection as it can get.

    I believe the real key to the RKBA fight is not gun laws themselves, but a much broader issue. Americans must be convinced that government is not the answer to everything. Americans must be weaned off the government teat, whether that teat is dispensing money or laws designed to 'protect' us from every little possible source of harm. Until THAT begins to shift, the RKBA fight is a delaying action at best.
     
  4. BTR

    BTR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    730
    Good article.

    One nitpick. I was under the impression that the requirement for a rifle to be 26 inches long was measured with the stock extended, not folded or collapsed.
     
  5. Dokkalfar

    Dokkalfar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    390
    i believe the length requirement is from the tip of the barrel to the end of the receiver... so it is the length of the rifle not including the stock.

    of course, military models, LE models, etc dont have quite the same legalities that civilian ones do :(
     
  6. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    Nope. Their measuring technique is well documented. This letter talks about pistol conversions, but it does give the measuring method clearly.

     
  7. ServiceSoon

    ServiceSoon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,404
    Location:
    Michiana
    Does anybody know where I can find this congressional report?
     
  8. Dokkalfar

    Dokkalfar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    390
    huh... so if i were to attach a stock that was capable of extending 20inches (though anyone who actually uses it wouldnt fully extend it) to any rifle, it would be perfectly legal? Which therefore means that there is no actual minimum length for a rifle. all you need to do is buy a really long, adjustable stock, and just put it on a shorter setting for use.

    but ATF's measurement method seems rather counter-productive, usually they make it harder for your firearms to be legal, not easier :p
     
  9. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,065
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    The barrel must also have a minimum length of 16", lest if be classified as a short barreled rifle.
     
  10. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    As long as this imaginary rifle also had a 16 inch barrel, yes. So there is at least a theoretical minimum length for a rifle of 16 inches.
     
  11. kilo729

    kilo729 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    Messages:
    213
    Every member of our government needs to be taken to a firing range and showed how the **** works, so they can stop talking out of their ass.
     
  12. WTBguns10kOK

    WTBguns10kOK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    496
    Location:
    Where the men own big trucks and the women drive t
    ^^^^ I'd pay 20 bucks to watch Nancy Pelosi try to fire a gun.
     
  13. Dokkalfar

    Dokkalfar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    390
    haha that would be awesome, take a video then submit it to AFV... though i doubt you could even get most members of copngress to go near a range, much less agree to fire a couple rounds.
     
  14. yeti

    yeti Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2006
    Messages:
    913
    Location:
    NEK, Vermont
    Well, it's not Pelosi, but it's gotta be worth a couple of bucks.

    [​IMG]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page