Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Banning assualt rifles Racist?????

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Banning assualt rifles Racist?????

    hmmmmm


    http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/04/16353310-nras-hammer-connects-assault-weapons-ban-racism?lite

  • #2
    "The NRA show's host, Ginny Simone, argued that proponents of the idea "admit this is about banning the ugliest guns, it's about cosmetics and it has nothing to do about how a firearm works." Hammer responded, "Well, you know, banning people and things because of the way they look went out a long time ago. But here they are again. The color of a gun. The way it looks. It's just bad politics."

    Yep, Hammer actually equated discrimination against people on the basis of race and ethnicity to banning assault weapons.

    And while it's true that Hammer is no longer the president of the organization, it's worth noting that she remains a lobbyist for the group and her comments were aired by NRA News.

    What's more, for the record, Feinstein and her allies have not "admitted" they want to limit sales of "ugly" guns; they've specified "the most dangerous guns."

    I'm beginning to think the NRA is not prepared for a serious, mature conversation about public policy."

    Comment


    • #3
      I didn't realize firearms were ranked by "dangerousness"...maybe by caliber...given a choice, I'd rather be shot by a .22 than a .44 Magnum, but any firearm can kill. Are we also going to go after BB guns, Airsoft guns and paintball guns that "look" dangerous? Instead of this pansy-a**ed piecemeal approach, let's just ban and confiscate everything (which is what they want anyway) and get this Revolution underway. We're way overdue.

      Comment


      • #4
        It's called an analogy and it is fairly accurate. People unfamiliar with guns want to ban ones that have an assault weapon appearance. Kind of like banning people based on their appearance (color), it's a stupid idea by narrow minded people.

        Comment


        • #5
          The roots of gun control are racist. They come from the Jim Crow south.

          Comment


          • #6
            So the NRA thinks this makes them down with da brothas? Can they possibly be more tone deaf?

            Note to NRA: just shut up, please.

            Comment


            • #7
              The military version is called the M1 Gerrand. The sporterized deer hunting gun version is called the 30-06. Works the same, uses the same ammunition and the only real difference is that it doesn't look the same.

              All the .308 hunting rifles out there use the standard NATO round.

              Oh, and by the way, all those shotgun enthusiasts out there that are fond of the 12-gauge, it was the same ammunition used from WWII-Vietnam that was nicknamed the "Trench Gun".

              A mobster from the 1930's will tell you the same bullet that comes out of the Thompson sub-machine gun is also the same bullet that comes out of a Colt Model 1913, the standard side arm of the US military from WWI through Vietnam. (.45 Cal) A very "in demand" gun by the civilian public today. As is the 9mm which was the standard Luger handgun of the German military in WWII.

              The Mosin-Nagant Model-1893 was the standard rifle used by Russian forces from 1893 through Vietnam. When a scope was added, it was their standard sniper rifle. It fired a .762 X 54 round. It was replaced with the more modern .762 X 36 round and is fired by the AK-47. Is it any wonder why Russia has maintained a standard .762 round for almost 140 years? By the way Mosin-Nagant rifles are so prevelant in today's US society that one can pick them up for under $100 at any gun show.

              How a gun looks is totally irrelevant. They all use some pretty standard ammunition which is the real measurement of damage a weapon can inflict. Once society gets over it's knee-jerk reaction of how ugly a gun may look, it might want to sit down and start discussing the real issues.

              Comment


              • #8
                It is rather (sadly) humorous that it is only the gun folks that trot out the red herring straw man scenario of a ban on a gun based on its appearance and proceed to belittle the idea. Is that the best they can come up with?

                Comment


                • #9
                  In all seriousness, if I could chose the gun most adept at what I need it for, i.e. home defense in close quarters, it would be a 5-round, semi-automatic 12-gauge, sawed off with pistol grip. If someone breaks into my home in the dark and I only have a few seconds to react, I want a gun that will do the most damage with the least amount of aiming. Other than the fact that it's ugly, illegal, and not an assault rifle, it's the perfect choice. After all, if one wants to keep the playing field level, find out what the bad guys are using and make sure you have one of them, too! Yes, that's profiling at it's finest!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    At the last gun show, I bought a Mossberg Maverick 88 "tactical" pump action 12 guage with an 18 inch barrel for under $300. It's not fancy, but it will put lead downrange. For another $50 I added an adjustable stock with a pistol grip, officially making it a dreaded "assault weapon", but necessary to fit my short arms. I've been told it is the most practical for home defense...barrel is short enough to maneuver indoors, and won't send lead flying two blocks over into your neighbor's bedroom.(This message has been edited by papadaddy)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Congress? We don't need no stinking Congress!


                      "Vice President Biden suggested Wednesday that the White House could take unilateral action on gun control, as he kicked off a round of meetings aimed at finding ways to curb gun violence.

                      The vice president met Wednesday with gun-safety and victims groups, saying he is "determined" to take "urgent action" to address gun violence.

                      "This is not an exercise in photo opportunities or just getting to ask you all what your opinions are. We are vitally interested in what you have to say," Biden said.

                      The White House has sought to avoid prejudging what Biden's recommendations would be. But the vice president hinted Wednesday that executive action -- action by the president in which Congress would not have a say -- would indeed be involved.

                      "Executive action ... can be taken," Biden said, adding "we haven't decided what that is yet."



                      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/09/vice-president-to-meet-with-gun-safety-groups/#ixzz2HVhnaXjh

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Executive orders that avoid Congress are scary precedents (especially if they are laws that Congress purposefully chooses not to enact). I wish that when they had first been issued, some civil liberties minded group had objected. The point of the Constitution was to limit the powers of government. We have been slowly forgetting that for over 100 yrs now.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It's called an analogy and it is fairly accurate. People unfamiliar with guns want to ban ones that have an assault weapon appearance. Kind of like banning people based on their appearance (color), it's a stupid idea by narrow minded people.

                          It's also a tactic used by da NRA and other lobbying groups, eh?

                          Yeh steer legislation toward appearances and away from substance. Yeh negotiate amendments or "compromise" language that leads to large loopholes which make da legislation ineffective.

                          Beavah

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I love the ad banner that is across the top of the page as I write. It says, "Tell Congress to support the 2nd Amendment" and has a button to push to sign a petition. What concerns me is: Why do we have to tell our elected representatives to do what they swore to uphold in the first place when they were sworn into office?

                            Once the political spin drags everyone down into the minutia of rhetoric, they will soon loose the vision of the overall picture. Kinda reminds me of the frog in the pot on the stove story.

                            Who determines whether a weapon is ugly? And what difference does it make? If someone is breaking into my home and threatening my family, I don't care a mouse's butt about whether my gun looks pretty, as long as it works and does the job. Maybe my assailant has a nickel-plated, pearl-handled Colt .45 and all I have is a Bushmaster, so what. Am I a bigot because of that? At that point, I really don't care.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Maybe my assailant has a nickel-plated, pearl-handled Colt .45 and all I have is a Bushmaster, so what. Am I a bigot...

                              I dunno. I suppose you could be considered a bigot if you berated your assailant by saying something non-PC like "Only a pimp in a New Orleans whorehouse or a tin-horn gambler would carry a pearl-handled pistol."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X