"Assault Weapons"

[novus collectus]

I thought this belongs in the National 2A forum and that is why I am posting it here. Extremely well done IMO and something we might be able to disseminate on the web during the next Cease Fire MD push for the MD AWB next year.

 

[organized_mayhem]

Thats a great video.

 

[gtodave]

I dunno....I think antis will look at it and say "We need to ban small handguns along with the assult rifles!!!", and not see it how we see it.

 

[novus collectus]

I dunno....I think antis will look at it and say "We need to ban small handguns along with the assult rifles!!!", and not see it how we see it.

Yes, its dissemination should probably be used sparingly.
This is what I am thinking: They try to pass a new AW ban using their previous tactics and after they get their bill written and are committed, we spring this on them. They would have to defend their established position from a direct attack and by the time they recover enough for the next session to try for a ban on those handguns we will have stopped using it and we attack their new established position with another tact.
If they take a position of trying to ban small handguns further (new Lorcin and Ravens are already not allowed to be sold in MD), then we point out how pointless and waste of time the last one was with the handgun roster and we also point out that they also tried to ban most of the more modern semi autos too with the AW high cap ban.

They cannot try to ban both "Saturday Night Specials" and so called AWs at the same time, because then they will look like the total gun grabbers they are to the public and their tactic has always been "we support gun ownership, but we are just trying to remove the unsafe guns from the streets" hoping some gun owners and hunters are hoodwinked into thinking they won't be coming after their gun.

 

[Redneck]

Wtf??? Which was and which wasnt an assault rifle in the end?

 

[Spot77]

Wtf??? Which was and which wasnt an assault rifle in the end?

That's part of the point; most people will NEVER know the difference.

 

[novus collectus]

Wtf??? Which was and which wasnt an assault rifle in the end?

The one with a lighter colored stock had a cup compensator which means it most likely had a threaded barrel.

 

[smores]

What we should do is make a video like this, comparing "AWs" to "sporting rifles". Show someone speed-loading a pump shotgun, hitting a target at a longer range with a .308 bolt rifle than an AK-47 clone, ballistics data, etc.

Once we uncover that guns are just guns period.... then any attempt to ban any gun will be seen as ridiculous.

I did like how they included the guy dumping 12 rounds through the revolver...

 

[BenL]

Unfortunately, all of this comparison could doubly be used by anti's. For instance, if you demonstrate how much more powerful a .300 Winchester Mag is than a .223, the anti's would use that- "If this is regulated, than that certainly should be, as well."

And so it goes, until all firearms of any kind are not permissible by law-abiding citizens.

 

[smores]

Unfortunately, all of this comparison could doubly be used by anti's. For instance, if you demonstrate how much more powerful a .300 Winchester Mag is than a .223, the anti's would use that- "If this is regulated, than that certainly should be, as well."

And so it goes, until all firearms of any kind are not permissible by law-abiding citizens.

Which is why we need SCOTUS to rule that it's an individual right once and for all. Then we can stop all this nonsense (or at least get a huge step closer).

Unfortunately we're having these crazy "gunmen" going around killing people it seems like almost every week. Yes, they're all criminals and usually obtain the guns illegally or take them into a gun-free zone, but all it does is get the antis' panties in a wad about rounding up all guns and destroying them

 

[BenL]

Which is why we need SCOTUS to rule that it's an individual right once and for all. Then we can stop all this nonsense (or at least get a huge step closer).

Unfortunately we're having these crazy "gunmen" going around killing people it seems like almost every week. Yes, they're all criminals and usually obtain the guns illegally or take them into a gun-free zone, but all it does is get the antis' panties in a wad about rounding up all guns and destroying them

An "individual right" decision would be fantastic. Then, I think it would be easily challangable to argue the right to "bear arms" in Maryland. Maryland does not have "resonable restrictions" on CCW, and that would be an easy case to win, as soon as SCOTUS decides "individual right".

 

[wlc]

The only thing that video will do is prompt them to ban more weapons to cover the ones that were not covered under the last ban.
The logic of the entire argument will escape them.

 

[novus collectus]

The only thing that video will do is prompt them to ban more weapons to cover the ones that were not covered under the last ban.
The logic of the entire argument will escape them.

BUt here is the catch. The only reason the first ban was able to be passed is because the public misconceptions and naivete. When their previous ridiculous bill is exposed and more people realize just how silly it was, then any attampt they try next will be spent mostly trying to explain just what they were thinking the first time.
The American public gets fooled every generation on somethinjg particular, but it is not too common they get burned twice on it in one generation.

Ok, here is an example. Bush used hysteria and fear of terrorism to get support for an invasion of Iraq, but when he tries the same tactic years later trying to get America to be fearful and follow without question his saber rattling over Iran he is so discreditted that no one really is falling for it. Even if he was right about Iran being a threat, his previous superior position of having the wave of unthinking hysteria and mob mentality of the public has been replaced by having a skeptical public which realised they were emotionally manipulated and suckered in a sense.

When people realise the last ban's tactics were a ruse, they will wonder if this one is too. No matter how much they alter it and try new stuff, people will always remember they were manipulated and suckered the last time or they will learn they were. The biggest thing we have going for us is statistics and facts, and the only thing they have going for them is hysteria, emotional manipulation and fear. Theirs is effective in the short term, but our benefit of facts, studies and sensible logic will win in the long haul.

 

[wlc]

BUt here is the catch. The only reason the first ban was able to be passed is because the public misconceptions and naivete. When their previous ridiculous bill is exposed and more people realize just how silly it was, then any attampt they try next will be spent mostly trying to explain just what they were thinking the first time.
The American public gets fooled every generation on somethinjg particular, but it is not too common they get burned twice on it in one generation.

Ok, here is an example. Bush used hysteria and fear of terrorism to get support for an invasion of Iraq, but when he tries the same tactic years later trying to get America to be fearful and follow without question his saber rattling over Iran he is so discreditted that no one really is falling for it. Even if he was right about Iran being a threat, his previous superior position of having the wave of unthinking hysteria and mob mentality of the public has been replaced by having a skeptical public which realised they were emotionally manipulated and suckered in a sense.

When people realise the last ban's tactics were a ruse, they will wonder if this one is too. No matter how much they alter it and try new stuff, people will always remember they were manipulated and suckered the last time or they will learn they were. The biggest thing we have going for us is statistics and facts, and the only thing they have going for them is hysteria, emotional manipulation and fear. Theirs is effective in the short term, but our benefit of facts, studies and sensible logic will win in the long haul.

The general public does not care enough about "assualt rifles" to look into the issue and see the truth. Statistics and facts can be manipulated by both sides to support thier cause. Theirs only needs to be effective long enough to get laws passed.

 

[novus collectus]

The general public does not care enough about "assualt rifles" to look into the issue and see the truth. Statistics and facts can be manipulated by both sides to support thier cause. Theirs only needs to be effective long enough to get laws passed.

Yes, but two important aspects must be considered. One is that they base some of their funds on SOME of the public giving them money and if the majority of them realize they were suckkered, then there goes some major support. When that goes and the only funds come from a very few rich contributors, then the allure to politicians of a mass of guarnteed voters disappears.
We just have to expose the misuse of statistics to prevent their use of them. Since we do not have to misrepresent most statistics on most gun issues, we have the superior tactical advantage with the public every time the antis try hysterical propaganda to get a bill passed.
We may or may not be able to influence the public and I do not want us to if it is untruthful, and I don't want us to even try to manipulate them, but one thing I am damn sure of is that we can prevent the antis from doing so by exposing their deceptions.

 

[jpk1md]

BUt here is the catch. The only reason the first ban was able to be passed is because the public misconceptions and naivete.

That may be a part of it but back in 1993-4 the Internet was not a widespread medium that was avail for distribution of current event/media.

A large portion of why the 1994 AWB happened was becuase the public was generally speaking not aware it was up for vote.

Today we would/will be all over it like flies on shit.

 

[tpy77]

The only thing that video will do is prompt them to ban more weapons to cover the ones that were not covered under the last ban.
The logic of the entire argument will escape them.

I've got a better idea. Show them what some things readily available at some big box, hardware, or dollar stores will do; baseball bats, kitchen knives, machetes, axes, hatchets, hammers. There's probably record of some of these being used, so you could start with the grusome details, and save the weaon for later. Should playgrounds be bat free zones? In Britain, after they banned most guns, blunt weapon trauma became a major cause of murders. "Bats don't kill people. People kill people".

 

[coinboy]

I've got a better idea. Show them what some things readily available at some big box, hardware, or dollar stores will do; baseball bats, kitchen knives, machetes, axes, hatchets, hammers. There's probably record of some of these being used, so you could start with the grusome details, and save the weaon for later. Should playgrounds be bat free zones? In Britain, after they banned most guns, blunt weapon trauma became a major cause of murders. "Bats don't kill people. People kill people".

Don't forget one of the number one killers:
Cars

 

[tpy77]

Don't forget one of the number one killers:
Cars

They also pollute and lead to global warming.

 

[novus collectus]

I remember back in the 90s the antis like VPC tried to claim twelve cops were killed by the so called "assault weapons" that year (only some were killed by someone using one of the banned rifles, the rest were killed using so called "assault pistols" and one or two SKS and I think an M1 which were not banned). I was looking at the list of officers killed this year so far a few months ago and I discovered that only two or three I could find were killed with a so called "assault rifle", but eight were murdered by vehicular assault.
In 2005 only three officers were murdered by someone using any kind of rifle, but five were murdered by someone using a vehicle.