info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: "What Will Gun Controllers Do When Americans Ignore an ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban?"
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Gunner Asch
Jun 21, 2016, 3:39:11 PM6/21/16
to
http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ
What Will Gun Controllers Do When Americans Ignore an ‘Assault
Weapons’ Ban?
Prohibitions have a long history of stumbling over people’s
unwillingness to obey. This time won’t be any different.
Prohibition was kneecapped by Americans' widespread refusal to stop
producing, selling, and drinking booze. Millions of Americans smoked
marijuana decades before majority sentiment creeped toward legalizing
the stuff. Gays and lesbians not only surreptitiously lived and loved
when they were targeted by the law—they also famously (and
righteously) stomped cops who raided the Stonewall Inn, ultimately
precipitating liberalization. And restrictions on exporting encryption
were eased only after cryptographers illegally exported code—even
printing it on T-shirts as an act of civil disobedience.
But in the wake of Omar Mateen's bloody rampage in Orlando, gun
control advocates think that overcoming the passionate opposition of
firearms owners and imposing a ban on a difficult to define class of
"assault weapons" is a swell idea whose time has come. This
prohibition will somehow be different.
"Those who defend the easy accessibility of assault weapons should
meet these families and explain why that makes sense," President Obama
tut-tutted last week. But the moralizer-in-chief failed to make sense
himself, calling for the outlawing of a category of devices that
doesn't really exist.
"The term assault weapon itself, of disputed origin, is a thorn in the
side of gun enthusiasts, who point out that the differences between
'assault weapons' and other semi-automatics are largely cosmetic and
don't increase the gun's lethality," explains Slate senior editor
Rachael Larimore, in a piece taking the media to task for reporting
and editorializing on guns without getting the facts straight.
"Because these guns are really just ordinary rifles, it is hard for
legislators to effectively regulate them without banning half the
handguns in the country (those that are semiautomatic and/or have
detachable magazines) and many hunting rifles as well," adds UCLA law
professor and gun control advocate Adam Winkler, who has actually done
his research.
Winkler also emphasizes why gun owners are so hardened in their
opposition to further legal restrictions: "Gun control advocates
ridicule the NRA's claim that the government is coming to take away
people's guns, then try to outlaw perhaps the most popular rifle in
the country."
Gun owners' response is best summarized by one of their more popular
slogans of recent years: "Molon labe." Usually translated as "come and
take them," that was Spartan King Leonidas I's legendary response to
the Persian demand that he and his men surrender their weapons before
the Battle of Thermopylae.
That gun owners mean what they say in the "assault weapons" context
can be inferred from the 5 percent compliance rate achieved by New
York's recent registration requirement for such firearms. Or from the
15 percent compliance rate in neighboring Connecticut.
In 1990, even before opposition had become so hardened, California
experienced similar resistance to its original restrictions on
"assault weapons."
"As a one-year registration period draws toward an end on Dec. 31,
only about 7,000 weapons of an estimated 300,000 in private hands in
the state have been registered," The New York Times reported.
When New Jersey went a step further and banned the sale and possession
of "assault weapons," 947 people registered their rifles as sporting
guns for target shooting, 888 rendered them inoperable, and four
surrendered them to the police. That's out of an estimated 100,000 to
300,000 firearms affected by the law. The New York Times concluded, a
bit drily, "More than a year after New Jersey imposed the toughest
assault-weapons law in the country, the law is proving difficult if
not impossible to enforce."
Some advocates of restrictions will object that they "don't want to
take away" existing guns—they just want to prevent the acquisition of
new ones. That narrative becomes complicated when officials like New
York Governor Andrew Cuomo muse that "Confiscation could be an
option"—a sentiment echoed by the New York Times editorial board.
But let's go with it. So, the government somehow defines "assault
weapons" in a meaningful way and bans sales of new ones. How is that
going to be effective given the millions of disfavored weapons already
in circulation? That includes roughly 8 million AR-15-style rifles
alone—out of somewhere north of 300 million firearms in general. It's
not like they're going anywhere. Plenty of 19th century firearms are
still in working condition.
And their numbers will increase, even if commercial production and
sales are outlawed. People have been 3D-printing AR-15 lower receivers
(the parts legally classified as a firearm) for years. More durable
receivers are CNC-milled by hobbyists from partially finished blanks
as well as raw blocks of metal. These techniques were developed in
anticipation of the laws now proposed, with the specific purpose of
rendering them impotent.
Molon labe, remember?
So, a United States the morning after, or a year after, or a decade
after a successful effort to ban "assault weapons" will not be the
scene of the "domestic disarmament" favored by prominent communitarian
sociology professor Amitai Etzioni. It will be more like
Prohibition-era America, but with hidden rifles substituting for
stockpiled hooch and 3D printers standing in for moonshiners' stills.
And probably a bit more tense.
Those defiant gun owners will also be included in the jury pools
chosen to sit in judgement of unlucky violators scooped up by law
enforcement. That situation will likely replicate the difficulty
prosecutors had in getting convictions of Prohibition scofflaws in the
1920s and marijuana law resisters today. "[I]f juries consistently
nullify certain types of criminal charges (charges for possession of a
small amount of marijuana, for example), this can render an unpopular
law ineffective," wrote John Richards at the LegalMatch blog after a
jury couldn't even be seated in Montana.
"If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't
follow them, then you have a real problem," Connecticut Sen. Tony
Guglielmo (R-District 35), told the Hartford Courant when large
numbers of state residents flipped the bird to lawmakers and defied
the new gun law.
Well... yes, you do. And like their restriction-inclined predecessors,
gun controllers will have quite a mess on their hands.
Photo Credit: Martin Laco Photography/flickr
J.D. Tuccille is a former managing editor of Reason.com and current
contributing editor.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
What Will Gun Controllers Do When Americans Ignore an ‘Assault
Weapons’ Ban?
Prohibitions have a long history of stumbling over people’s
unwillingness to obey. This time won’t be any different.
Prohibition was kneecapped by Americans' widespread refusal to stop
producing, selling, and drinking booze. Millions of Americans smoked
marijuana decades before majority sentiment creeped toward legalizing
the stuff. Gays and lesbians not only surreptitiously lived and loved
when they were targeted by the law—they also famously (and
righteously) stomped cops who raided the Stonewall Inn, ultimately
precipitating liberalization. And restrictions on exporting encryption
were eased only after cryptographers illegally exported code—even
printing it on T-shirts as an act of civil disobedience.
But in the wake of Omar Mateen's bloody rampage in Orlando, gun
control advocates think that overcoming the passionate opposition of
firearms owners and imposing a ban on a difficult to define class of
"assault weapons" is a swell idea whose time has come. This
prohibition will somehow be different.
"Those who defend the easy accessibility of assault weapons should
meet these families and explain why that makes sense," President Obama
tut-tutted last week. But the moralizer-in-chief failed to make sense
himself, calling for the outlawing of a category of devices that
doesn't really exist.
"The term assault weapon itself, of disputed origin, is a thorn in the
side of gun enthusiasts, who point out that the differences between
'assault weapons' and other semi-automatics are largely cosmetic and
don't increase the gun's lethality," explains Slate senior editor
Rachael Larimore, in a piece taking the media to task for reporting
and editorializing on guns without getting the facts straight.
"Because these guns are really just ordinary rifles, it is hard for
legislators to effectively regulate them without banning half the
handguns in the country (those that are semiautomatic and/or have
detachable magazines) and many hunting rifles as well," adds UCLA law
professor and gun control advocate Adam Winkler, who has actually done
his research.
Winkler also emphasizes why gun owners are so hardened in their
opposition to further legal restrictions: "Gun control advocates
ridicule the NRA's claim that the government is coming to take away
people's guns, then try to outlaw perhaps the most popular rifle in
the country."
Gun owners' response is best summarized by one of their more popular
slogans of recent years: "Molon labe." Usually translated as "come and
take them," that was Spartan King Leonidas I's legendary response to
the Persian demand that he and his men surrender their weapons before
the Battle of Thermopylae.
That gun owners mean what they say in the "assault weapons" context
can be inferred from the 5 percent compliance rate achieved by New
York's recent registration requirement for such firearms. Or from the
15 percent compliance rate in neighboring Connecticut.
In 1990, even before opposition had become so hardened, California
experienced similar resistance to its original restrictions on
"assault weapons."
"As a one-year registration period draws toward an end on Dec. 31,
only about 7,000 weapons of an estimated 300,000 in private hands in
the state have been registered," The New York Times reported.
When New Jersey went a step further and banned the sale and possession
of "assault weapons," 947 people registered their rifles as sporting
guns for target shooting, 888 rendered them inoperable, and four
surrendered them to the police. That's out of an estimated 100,000 to
300,000 firearms affected by the law. The New York Times concluded, a
bit drily, "More than a year after New Jersey imposed the toughest
assault-weapons law in the country, the law is proving difficult if
not impossible to enforce."
Some advocates of restrictions will object that they "don't want to
take away" existing guns—they just want to prevent the acquisition of
new ones. That narrative becomes complicated when officials like New
York Governor Andrew Cuomo muse that "Confiscation could be an
option"—a sentiment echoed by the New York Times editorial board.
But let's go with it. So, the government somehow defines "assault
weapons" in a meaningful way and bans sales of new ones. How is that
going to be effective given the millions of disfavored weapons already
in circulation? That includes roughly 8 million AR-15-style rifles
alone—out of somewhere north of 300 million firearms in general. It's
not like they're going anywhere. Plenty of 19th century firearms are
still in working condition.
And their numbers will increase, even if commercial production and
sales are outlawed. People have been 3D-printing AR-15 lower receivers
(the parts legally classified as a firearm) for years. More durable
receivers are CNC-milled by hobbyists from partially finished blanks
as well as raw blocks of metal. These techniques were developed in
anticipation of the laws now proposed, with the specific purpose of
rendering them impotent.
Molon labe, remember?
So, a United States the morning after, or a year after, or a decade
after a successful effort to ban "assault weapons" will not be the
scene of the "domestic disarmament" favored by prominent communitarian
sociology professor Amitai Etzioni. It will be more like
Prohibition-era America, but with hidden rifles substituting for
stockpiled hooch and 3D printers standing in for moonshiners' stills.
And probably a bit more tense.
Those defiant gun owners will also be included in the jury pools
chosen to sit in judgement of unlucky violators scooped up by law
enforcement. That situation will likely replicate the difficulty
prosecutors had in getting convictions of Prohibition scofflaws in the
1920s and marijuana law resisters today. "[I]f juries consistently
nullify certain types of criminal charges (charges for possession of a
small amount of marijuana, for example), this can render an unpopular
law ineffective," wrote John Richards at the LegalMatch blog after a
jury couldn't even be seated in Montana.
"If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't
follow them, then you have a real problem," Connecticut Sen. Tony
Guglielmo (R-District 35), told the Hartford Courant when large
numbers of state residents flipped the bird to lawmakers and defied
the new gun law.
Well... yes, you do. And like their restriction-inclined predecessors,
gun controllers will have quite a mess on their hands.
Photo Credit: Martin Laco Photography/flickr
J.D. Tuccille is a former managing editor of Reason.com and current
contributing editor.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Ed Huntress
Jun 21, 2016, 4:26:35 PM6/21/16
to
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:35:12 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ
>
>What Will Gun Controllers Do When Americans Ignore an ‘Assault
>Weapons’ Ban?
>Prohibitions have a long history of stumbling over people’s
>unwillingness to obey. This time won’t be any different.
That's an especially idiotic article, Gunner. The "100,000 - 300,000
assault weapons" in NJ, in 1991, is especially ludicrous. That's
exactly when I was active with the NRA, lobbying to oppose the NJ AR
ban, and I was on the phone regularly with the NJSP officer in charge
of filing UCR data. The number was around 5,000 then, at most.
As for resisting by ignoring the law if ARs are banned, I can't wait
to hear your report if you try. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
wrote:
>http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ
>
>What Will Gun Controllers Do When Americans Ignore an ‘Assault
>Weapons’ Ban?
>Prohibitions have a long history of stumbling over people’s
>unwillingness to obey. This time won’t be any different.
assault weapons" in NJ, in 1991, is especially ludicrous. That's
exactly when I was active with the NRA, lobbying to oppose the NJ AR
ban, and I was on the phone regularly with the NJSP officer in charge
of filing UCR data. The number was around 5,000 then, at most.
As for resisting by ignoring the law if ARs are banned, I can't wait
to hear your report if you try. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Artemus
Jun 21, 2016, 9:05:55 PM6/21/16
to
I wonder why some organization (NRA?) hasn't defined the term 'defense weapon''?
An AR-15, or whatever, could then be legally defined to be a home 'defense weapon'.
The assholes currently using the term 'assault weapon' can't even define what that is, and
use the term in the same vein that 'racist' is used to cover just about anything the speaker
doesn't like, and terminate a discussion they are losing.
Art
"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8k5jmbpria8u7spu2...@4ax.com...
> take away" existing guns-they just want to prevent the acquisition of
An AR-15, or whatever, could then be legally defined to be a home 'defense weapon'.
The assholes currently using the term 'assault weapon' can't even define what that is, and
use the term in the same vein that 'racist' is used to cover just about anything the speaker
doesn't like, and terminate a discussion they are losing.
Art
"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8k5jmbpria8u7spu2...@4ax.com...
> http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ
>
> What Will Gun Controllers Do When Americans Ignore an 'Assault
> Weapons' Ban?
> Prohibitions have a long history of stumbling over people's
> unwillingness to obey. This time won't be any different.
>
>
> Prohibition was kneecapped by Americans' widespread refusal to stop
> producing, selling, and drinking booze. Millions of Americans smoked
> marijuana decades before majority sentiment creeped toward legalizing
> the stuff. Gays and lesbians not only surreptitiously lived and loved
> when they were targeted by the law-they also famously (and
>
> What Will Gun Controllers Do When Americans Ignore an 'Assault
> Weapons' Ban?
> Prohibitions have a long history of stumbling over people's
> unwillingness to obey. This time won't be any different.
>
>
> Prohibition was kneecapped by Americans' widespread refusal to stop
> producing, selling, and drinking booze. Millions of Americans smoked
> marijuana decades before majority sentiment creeped toward legalizing
> the stuff. Gays and lesbians not only surreptitiously lived and loved
> righteously) stomped cops who raided the Stonewall Inn, ultimately
> precipitating liberalization. And restrictions on exporting encryption
> were eased only after cryptographers illegally exported code-even
> precipitating liberalization. And restrictions on exporting encryption
> new ones. That narrative becomes complicated when officials like New
> York Governor Andrew Cuomo muse that "Confiscation could be an
> option"-a sentiment echoed by the New York Times editorial board.
> York Governor Andrew Cuomo muse that "Confiscation could be an
>
> But let's go with it. So, the government somehow defines "assault
> weapons" in a meaningful way and bans sales of new ones. How is that
> going to be effective given the millions of disfavored weapons already
> in circulation? That includes roughly 8 million AR-15-style rifles
> alone-out of somewhere north of 300 million firearms in general. It's
> But let's go with it. So, the government somehow defines "assault
> weapons" in a meaningful way and bans sales of new ones. How is that
> going to be effective given the millions of disfavored weapons already
> in circulation? That includes roughly 8 million AR-15-style rifles
Rudy Canoza
Jun 21, 2016, 11:00:51 PM6/21/16
to
On 6/21/2016 7:05 PM, Artemus wrote:
> I wonder why some organization (NRA?) hasn't defined the term 'defense weapon''?
> An AR-15, or whatever, could then be legally defined to be a home 'defense weapon'.
> The assholes currently using the term 'assault weapon' can't even define what that is, and
> use the term in the same vein that 'racist' is used to cover just about anything the speaker
> doesn't like, and terminate a discussion they are losing.
"Assault weapon" is a purely cosmetic term. It means a firearm that
> I wonder why some organization (NRA?) hasn't defined the term 'defense weapon''?
> An AR-15, or whatever, could then be legally defined to be a home 'defense weapon'.
> The assholes currently using the term 'assault weapon' can't even define what that is, and
> use the term in the same vein that 'racist' is used to cover just about anything the speaker
> doesn't like, and terminate a discussion they are losing.
"looks" like something Rambo would use. That's *all* it means. You
could produce a single-shot .22 rifle that "looks" like an AR-15, and
left-wing jelly-spines would start to tremble and shriek and drool piss
their panties and wring their hands over the scary-looking "assault
weapon." I don't know very much about guns, but I know at least a
thousand times more about them than the average leftist.
>
> "Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8k5jmbpria8u7spu2...@4ax.com...
>> http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ
>>
>> What Will Gun Controllers Do When Americans Ignore an 'Assault
>> Weapons' Ban?
>> Prohibitions have a long history of stumbling over people's
>> unwillingness to obey. This time won't be any different.
Jim Wilkins
Jun 22, 2016, 7:39:26 AM6/22/16
to
"Rudy Canoza" <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
news:Bbnaz.17515$eU5....@fx17.fr7...
shorter, -less- powerful weapon better suited than handguns, shotguns
or their high powered, long ranged infantry rifles for house-to-house
fighting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44
"..offering a greatly increased volume of fire compared to standard
infantry rifles and greater range than submachine guns." (which fire
pistol ammo)
The AK-47 was the Russian response, EXACTLY what they needed to defend
their homes.
The crucial distinction that the lib-liars try to conceal is that a
true Assault Weapon is a full-auto machine gun while the civilian
versions are NOT.
--V.G.Fyodorov
Inventor of the first one, 1915
news:Bbnaz.17515$eU5....@fx17.fr7...
> On 6/21/2016 7:05 PM, Artemus wrote:
>> I wonder why some organization (NRA?) hasn't defined the term
>> 'defense weapon''?
>> An AR-15, or whatever, could then be legally defined to be a home
>> 'defense weapon'.
>> The assholes currently using the term 'assault weapon' can't even
>> define what that is, and
>> use the term in the same vein that 'racist' is used to cover just
>> about anything the speaker
>> doesn't like, and terminate a discussion they are losing.
>
> "Assault weapon" is a purely cosmetic term. It means a firearm that
> "looks" like something Rambo would use. That's *all* it means. You
> could produce a single-shot .22 rifle that "looks" like an AR-15,
> and left-wing jelly-spines would start to tremble and shriek and
> drool piss their panties and wring their hands over the
> scary-looking "assault weapon." I don't know very much about guns,
> but I know at least a thousand times more about them than the
> average leftist.
It's a literal translation of the German "Sturmgewehr", meaning a
>> I wonder why some organization (NRA?) hasn't defined the term
>> 'defense weapon''?
>> An AR-15, or whatever, could then be legally defined to be a home
>> 'defense weapon'.
>> The assholes currently using the term 'assault weapon' can't even
>> define what that is, and
>> use the term in the same vein that 'racist' is used to cover just
>> about anything the speaker
>> doesn't like, and terminate a discussion they are losing.
>
> "Assault weapon" is a purely cosmetic term. It means a firearm that
> "looks" like something Rambo would use. That's *all* it means. You
> could produce a single-shot .22 rifle that "looks" like an AR-15,
> and left-wing jelly-spines would start to tremble and shriek and
> drool piss their panties and wring their hands over the
> scary-looking "assault weapon." I don't know very much about guns,
> but I know at least a thousand times more about them than the
> average leftist.
shorter, -less- powerful weapon better suited than handguns, shotguns
or their high powered, long ranged infantry rifles for house-to-house
fighting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44
"..offering a greatly increased volume of fire compared to standard
infantry rifles and greater range than submachine guns." (which fire
pistol ammo)
The AK-47 was the Russian response, EXACTLY what they needed to defend
their homes.
The crucial distinction that the lib-liars try to conceal is that a
true Assault Weapon is a full-auto machine gun while the civilian
versions are NOT.
--V.G.Fyodorov
Inventor of the first one, 1915
Stormin Mormon
Jun 22, 2016, 7:46:43 AM6/22/16
to
Years ago, someone used the term "homeland defense
rifle". I don't much remember the context, as it was
a long time ago.
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.
rifle". I don't much remember the context, as it was
a long time ago.
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.
Stormin Mormon
Jun 22, 2016, 7:47:27 AM6/22/16
to
On 6/21/2016 11:00 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 6/21/2016 7:05 PM, Artemus wrote:
>> I wonder why some organization (NRA?) hasn't defined the term 'defense
>> weapon''?
>> An AR-15, or whatever, could then be legally defined to be a home
>> 'defense weapon'.
>> The assholes currently using the term 'assault weapon' can't even
>> define what that is, and
>> use the term in the same vein that 'racist' is used to cover just
>> about anything the speaker
>> doesn't like, and terminate a discussion they are losing.
>
> "Assault weapon" is a purely cosmetic term. It means a firearm that
> "looks" like something Rambo would use. That's *all* it means. You
> could produce a single-shot .22 rifle that "looks" like an AR-15, and
> left-wing jelly-spines would start to tremble and shriek and drool piss
> their panties and wring their hands over the scary-looking "assault
> weapon." I don't know very much about guns, but I know at least a
> thousand times more about them than the average leftist.
>
Not to mention being humble, and handsome?
> On 6/21/2016 7:05 PM, Artemus wrote:
>> I wonder why some organization (NRA?) hasn't defined the term 'defense
>> weapon''?
>> An AR-15, or whatever, could then be legally defined to be a home
>> 'defense weapon'.
>> The assholes currently using the term 'assault weapon' can't even
>> define what that is, and
>> use the term in the same vein that 'racist' is used to cover just
>> about anything the speaker
>> doesn't like, and terminate a discussion they are losing.
>
> "Assault weapon" is a purely cosmetic term. It means a firearm that
> "looks" like something Rambo would use. That's *all* it means. You
> could produce a single-shot .22 rifle that "looks" like an AR-15, and
> left-wing jelly-spines would start to tremble and shriek and drool piss
> their panties and wring their hands over the scary-looking "assault
> weapon." I don't know very much about guns, but I know at least a
> thousand times more about them than the average leftist.
>
--
Ed Huntress
Jun 22, 2016, 8:29:45 AM6/22/16
to
murderers choose these guns because they are the most effective
mass-killing guns available, short of a fully automatic gun. Even more
important to the nut jobs, they have that bad-ass look that signals an
intent to kill people with military effectiveness. Mass killers
probably love the optics more than anything -- they look alarming on
the evening news. They look like real ARs and they're physically
derived from ARs. That's close enough for the average non-gunner to
lump them together.
But it seems pretty clear that the main reason most people, including
mass murderers, buy these guns is that they carry that bad-ass
people-killing imprimatur. That's what they're all about. That's what
has made them so popular, because the .223/5.56 NATO is one of the
most useless cartridges for regular civilian purposes. I say that as
one who loves those cartridges, and who, until a few years ago, owned
a Browning 1885 chambered for .223. I bought it to shoot groundhogs
and wound up using it to kill javelina. I've always been into varmint
cartridges and that's what a .223 is, derived from the .222 Magnum
varmint cartridge.
Despite what the author said in that article that was linked to a day
or so ago, my bet is that the number of people who go for the
higher-caliber barrels and so on is very, very small. I'd love to see
the actual numbers.
--
Ed Huntress (who spent countless hours defending the legality of ARs
25 years ago, when I was an active DCM shooter)
Jim Wilkins
Jun 22, 2016, 9:15:20 AM6/22/16
to
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:nevkmbd2kdd0irdt6...@4ax.com...
the Left goes for the butt, the 'seat' of emotion, as you have just
shown. Both sides know which end of their followers' spinal cords
control their actions.
Right: What do you think about this?
Left: How does this make you feel?
--I.P.Pavlov
news:nevkmbd2kdd0irdt6...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:40:15 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
> <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> By focusing on the semantics, you entirely miss the point. Mass
> murderers choose these guns because they are the most effective
> mass-killing guns available, short of a fully automatic gun. Even
> more
> important to the nut jobs, they have that bad-ass look that signals
> an
> intent to kill people with military effectiveness. Mass killers
> probably love the optics more than anything -- they look alarming on
> the evening news. They look like real ARs and they're physically
> derived from ARs. That's close enough for the average non-gunner to
> lump them together.
>
The real point is that the Right aims its messages at the brain while
> <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> By focusing on the semantics, you entirely miss the point. Mass
> murderers choose these guns because they are the most effective
> mass-killing guns available, short of a fully automatic gun. Even
> more
> important to the nut jobs, they have that bad-ass look that signals
> an
> intent to kill people with military effectiveness. Mass killers
> probably love the optics more than anything -- they look alarming on
> the evening news. They look like real ARs and they're physically
> derived from ARs. That's close enough for the average non-gunner to
> lump them together.
>
the Left goes for the butt, the 'seat' of emotion, as you have just
shown. Both sides know which end of their followers' spinal cords
control their actions.
Right: What do you think about this?
Left: How does this make you feel?
--I.P.Pavlov
Ed Huntress
Jun 22, 2016, 9:24:43 AM6/22/16
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:16:09 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
buying only a tiny fraction of the ARs they're actually buying. The
number of people for whom it's a sensible choice of gun is very small.
Unlike Jon Ball, I *do* know guns, and have been hunting, target
shooting, and doing some amateur gunsmithing since 1959, when I earned
my Marksmanship merit badge in the Boy Scouts. Do you want to get into
a debate about how much brainpower is involved in the average AR
purchase? Or do you just want to admit now that it's 90% emotion?
I'm not impressed with the right-wing brain.
--
Ed Huntress
<murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:nevkmbd2kdd0irdt6...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:40:15 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
>> <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> By focusing on the semantics, you entirely miss the point. Mass
>> murderers choose these guns because they are the most effective
>> mass-killing guns available, short of a fully automatic gun. Even
>> more
>> important to the nut jobs, they have that bad-ass look that signals
>> an
>> intent to kill people with military effectiveness. Mass killers
>> probably love the optics more than anything -- they look alarming on
>> the evening news. They look like real ARs and they're physically
>> derived from ARs. That's close enough for the average non-gunner to
>> lump them together.
>>
>
>
>The real point is that the Right aims its messages at the brain while
>the Left goes for the butt, the 'seat' of emotion, as you have just
>shown. Both sides know which end of their followers' spinal cords
>control their actions.
No, because the "right," if they were using their brains, would be
>"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:nevkmbd2kdd0irdt6...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 07:40:15 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
>> <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> By focusing on the semantics, you entirely miss the point. Mass
>> murderers choose these guns because they are the most effective
>> mass-killing guns available, short of a fully automatic gun. Even
>> more
>> important to the nut jobs, they have that bad-ass look that signals
>> an
>> intent to kill people with military effectiveness. Mass killers
>> probably love the optics more than anything -- they look alarming on
>> the evening news. They look like real ARs and they're physically
>> derived from ARs. That's close enough for the average non-gunner to
>> lump them together.
>>
>
>
>The real point is that the Right aims its messages at the brain while
>the Left goes for the butt, the 'seat' of emotion, as you have just
>shown. Both sides know which end of their followers' spinal cords
>control their actions.
buying only a tiny fraction of the ARs they're actually buying. The
number of people for whom it's a sensible choice of gun is very small.
Unlike Jon Ball, I *do* know guns, and have been hunting, target
shooting, and doing some amateur gunsmithing since 1959, when I earned
my Marksmanship merit badge in the Boy Scouts. Do you want to get into
a debate about how much brainpower is involved in the average AR
purchase? Or do you just want to admit now that it's 90% emotion?
I'm not impressed with the right-wing brain.
--
Ed Huntress
Rudy Canoza
Jun 22, 2016, 12:29:16 PM6/22/16
to
absolute numbers and as a percentage of the number of such guns in
private possession, than occur with handguns. I venture to say not 1%
of gun homicides in the United States are committed using this type of gun.
Ed Huntress
Jun 22, 2016, 12:53:05 PM6/22/16
to
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:29:14 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:
\
That's probably accurate, and it was my original reason for
editorializing and lobbying against NJ's AR ban (we mostly lost). At
the time, around 1990, I asked the NJ State Police officer in charge
of providing state firearms data to the FBI/UCR, how many crimes had
been known to have been committed with ARs in NJ. "One" was his reply.
That was before they became the weapon of choice for terrorists and
mass-murdering nutjobs. They've acquired a cachet for being an
outstanding terror weapon, adding to the terror by their appearance,
their efficacy, and their history. So they present an entirely
different problem than they did in 1990.
--
Ed Huntress
wrote:
That's probably accurate, and it was my original reason for
editorializing and lobbying against NJ's AR ban (we mostly lost). At
the time, around 1990, I asked the NJ State Police officer in charge
of providing state firearms data to the FBI/UCR, how many crimes had
been known to have been committed with ARs in NJ. "One" was his reply.
That was before they became the weapon of choice for terrorists and
mass-murdering nutjobs. They've acquired a cachet for being an
outstanding terror weapon, adding to the terror by their appearance,
their efficacy, and their history. So they present an entirely
different problem than they did in 1990.
--
Ed Huntress
0 new messages