A video from Protest Easy Guns:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQN1u_aPgcM[/youtube]
Did you know that they were developed for trench warfare? That they were meant for spray fire? That they were more dangerous because of the way they fired? Man, it’s just like they handed her that and said “Just get up there and talk, we don’t care if you have no idea what you’re talking about. Just make shit up that sounds scary.”
Assault rifles weren’t invented until the early 40s, and not deployed in warfare until 1944 — long after the era of trench warfare. Assault Weapons were invented by the California Legislature in 1989. A semi-automatic firearm can’t “spray” anything, except maybe oil if you over lubricate it.
Normally I’d give them hell about not allowing comments, but to be honest, I don’t on YouTube either, because YouTube comments will melt your brain.
Well, the facts are assuredly not on their side, so the only alternative left is to do their damnest to scare, upset, worry, and otherwise emotionally motivate people who probably do not know any better about the topic at hand.
In other words, make gos-se up as they go.
Granted, this is certainly nothing new for the anti-rights crowd, but that much concentrated stupidity in one location surely has to have detrimental affects on the space-time continuum…
This woman needs to give up on addressing firearms, about which she knows absolutely nothing, and start lecturing on quantum physics about which she probably knows less.
[W-III]
Wow. I dont think ive ever seen such a string of lies
Hmmm.. I wonder if I handed her my SMLE with it’s 1941 Austrialian heritage of assaulting Japanese installations in New Guinea (well, probably not MY rifle) if her head would melt like an Indiana Jones special effect.
Come to think of it, we still have the children of trench warfare (well, besides the SMLE): shotguns! Holy smoke! And speaking of smoke, that Knight muzzleloader that so-called ‘hunters’ use? It’s from the Civil War! OMG!!!!!!eleven!!!
Maybe she simply suffers from an ancient disease
I think it’s more likely she just learned everything she knows about guns from Josh Sugarmann
“Gun facts” and “assault weapon” together in the first frame give this away.
Yes, it certainly does seem difficult to describe what an assault weapon is. Could you guys do it? If you wanted to, could it be done properly?
I noticed when Congresswoman McCarthy had that “barrel shroud” embarrassment, you pro-gun guys were a bit vicious towards her, usually in that mocking condescending way. Same thing with this one. Isn’t it acceptable that a gun control person might not be as expert in guns as the gun enthusiast? Describing things badly, not knowing how to express the point in a technically accurate way should be expected from a non-gun person. Do they have to become experts before you’ll even listen and consider what they say?
Err, there’s a slight difference between “technically inaccurate” and completely, utterly false.
Why should we consider what people who have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about have to say? Would you give a flat-earther the time of day if they were shrieking that we need to ban boats so that people don’t sail off the edge of the world?
It’s fairly common on youtube. Most anti-gun videos are like this where the viewer if they have any gun knowledge at all knows how full of crap it is. Or the production is so bad it doesn’t get across. “um, um, um”. Nearly 100% of the anti-gun videos made by an organisation on youtube have ratings disabled and comments disabled and/or they give it 5 stars once and then disable ratings (I think youtube fixed that “cheat” device when some larger private channels brought it up).
The ones that don’t. The ones by individuals that don’t disable ratings you never see above 2 stars and the comments, most 1 to 1-1/2. If the comments are open and the poster hasn’t started “reasoned dicourse” is usually entirely filled with pro-gun comments with very few anti’s who get jumped upon rather quick with the ignorance they spew forth (usually in a matter of minutes). So by that logic most of the people who watch these are usually pro-gunners who run accross it.
Look up “ban all guns” on youtube to get an idea. There’s one guy so bad you would think its satire or he’s just sniffed coke. But I found out it was satire.
I remember watching the news that ran a story about the VA survivors and the videos they made and have posted to close the “gun show loophole”. All the videos that the news showed by them were all 1 stars.
Even given that the concept of an “assault weapon” is a complete fabrication, it is a fabrication by the anti-rights crowd, so explain to me why, exactly, they are having such a hard time abiding by their own definitions? The legal, nation-wide definition was quite clear in the Ban On Firearms With Certain Aesthetic Features, but this halfwit cannot even be bothered to quote chapter and verse, and instead relies on made-up realities, emotional pleas, and other such nonsense.
No. If anything, a person who is trying to deny a right to another person should know more about the topic at hand, not less. After all, they are the one talking about abridging a natural, Constitutionally-protected right on the basis of an aesthetic feature of a firearm that may or may not actually affect its overall performance (please, oh great and almighty MikeB302000, explain to us the dangers of firearms with … oooh … bayonet lugs!).
Yes. If folks want to be treated as authorities on a topic (as this clueless individual clearly does), then they actually have to be able to speak with some authority on the topic, otherwise they come across looking like complete and utter morons (see the above video). If folks want their statements to be treated as facts, then they actually need to be facts.
But, then again, I am telling this to someone who cannot even tell fact from fiction, so it is no wonder that the concept is foreign to you.
Hey Mikeb302000
We have been listening to the anti-gunners crusade against so-called “assault-weapons” since 1985, kicked off by the absurd Newsweek cover story “Machine gun USA”. In simple terms, the crusade is a tremendous crock of BS, wholly dependent on preying upon fears of violence and exploiting the publics ignorance about firearms. Surely you’ve seen the infamous Josh Sugarman quote?
What’s really going on is an attempt to ban firearm technology that has been in the hands of the U.S. public since 1905! That’s when the Winchester model 1905 self-loading rifle came out. It was a center fire rifle, semi-automatic, and 10 shot detachable magazines were available. They were quite popular in the first half of the twentieth century.
Why not put up a little video response with the real facts about semi-autofirearms?
Jack:
There are many out there. The best, in my opinion, is this one, made to help defeat the Roberti-Roos ban on California
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0
MikeB:
An “assault weapon” is a legal definition. I can give you that legal definition in any of the states that have one (or the expired federal) if you really want it, but that’s all it is. The term has absolutely no meaning to a serious shooter, because it’s just a semi-automatic rifle. Assault rifle does have a specific definition, and it requires the rifle to be capable of automatic fire, among other things.
If you were to boil down the legal definition, it comes down to “Here’s a list of guns we think look scary, and here’s a list of some scary features we don’t think guns should have.” none of which have a damned thing to do with the lethality or dangerousness of the firearm in question. All firearms are dangerous in the hands of someone with intent to harm.
Yes, it certainly does seem difficult to describe what an assault weapon is. Could you guys do it?
Sure! From Wikipedia, I find this:
A weapon is a tool used to apply force for the purpose of hunting, attack, self-defense, or defense in combat.
and this:
Assault is a crime of violence against another person.
So then, an assault weapon is a tool that is used to inflict violence.
I personally have in my arsenal an assault hammer, assault wrench, several assault screwdrivers, and an assault circular saw (one of my favorites!).
Less useful are my assault can of penetrating oil, assault bug repellent, and assault spray adhesive. I also have a tube of assault blue threadlocker, but it’s nowhere near as good as the red.
And now that I think about it, I’ve got a Sharps container full of assault used syringe needles that I could use in a pinch.
But the 4-D Maglite on the window sill is NOT an assault weapon (mostly since it’s my son’s, and the finish is much too nice).
I hear that Caleb used to have an assault cup-of-coffee, but he flagrantly misused it in a defensive encounter, so now it’s of no assaultive use ….. but they’re unrestricted and he could easily get another one. And cups-of-coffee aren’t tools. Well, maybe ….
I just checked my toolbox, and I also have a big plumb bob, but it’s got a low-capacity cotton string. I could make it an assault plumb bob if I put a synthetic, high-capacity nylon string on it.
Come to think of it, I guess my cordless drill is an assault cordless drill, since it’s got the 18v, high-capacity batteries with it (instead of whimpy, low-capacity 12v batteries).
But I’ll bet this ain’t what you meant.
Maybe you meant this, again from Wiki:
In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]
* It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
* It must be capable of selective fire;
* It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
* Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
The general standard definition (which is military in origin) is an Army intelligence document.
This is NOT what your girl in the video is talking about.
But you didn’t really want to be educated on the finer points of assault weapons, now, didja?
Same thing with this one. Isn’t it acceptable that a gun control person might not be as expert in guns as the gun enthusiast?
The point MikeB, is that you folks want to ban certain things and yet demonstrate that you have not a damn clue what you’re talking about. In fact, it goes beyond ignorance. It’s flat out lying in order to push a gun control agenda that screams “OMG, EVIL, SCARY GUNS!!”
This has got to be either satire or some pleasant but ignorant woman practicing a Toastmasters speech. I want to believe that. The clip is as devoid of facts as MikeB is of common sense.
The pro-gun refrain that gun control people really want to ban guns because they’re scary looking, is mistaken. I believe you say that in order to mock and condescend. It’s a useful tool in arguing but it’s an unfair one. It’s attempting to read into the minds of people to determine what their true motives are. No one can do that.
Some of the gun control spokesmen may very well be afraid of guns but that’s not why they want to restrict or ban them. They want to do that, right or wrong, because they think that will help with the problem of gun violence.
You’re assigning this more superficial and small-minded motive to them is a trick on your part to maintain the upper hand in the argument.
The fact that some of them like this woman in the video perhaps have not done their homework like they should have has nothing to do with their true motives.
Some gun control people are not afraid of guns at all. So when you say it about them it’s simply mistaken.
The pro-gun refrain that gun control people really want to ban guns because they’re scary looking, is mistaken.
Then why are they advocating banning guns based on cosmetic features rather than function?
“Then why are they advocating banning guns based on cosmetic features rather than function?”
’cause if they told the truth, no one but absolute anti-gun dead-enders would agree with them. They want to ban them all, MikeB (you criminal, you!) We know it, they know we know it. They just keep playing little word games to try to prevent the undecideds from figuring out the ultimate goal. Don’t believe me?
Easily concealed “pocket rocket”- pistol is too small
Vest busting Big Boomer – Pistol is too big
Deadly High Caliber Assault Weapon – Semi-auto rifle
Sniper rifle – bolt action rifle with a scope
Street Sweeper – pretty much any shotgun
armor piercing round – pretty much any rifle round, since cop vests aren’t designed to stop rifles
Junk Guns – guns cheap enough that poor blacks can own them (can’t let them have guns can you, racist?)
High Capacity Killer Clips – has more bullets than you want it to have
Basically if it expells a projectile by means of expanding gasses, spring tension, or rubber bands, you guys want to ban it. You are just smart enough to lie and tell the public that you just want to ban this one class of weapon, honest! We really don’t want to ban your deer rifle.
Unless you can cite one specific, exact, precise example where the banning of a bayonet lug prevented, stopped, or deterred a crime, or could rationally, logically, and reasonably be expected to do the same, the above statement is demonstrably false.
The same goes for flash suppressors, folding and telescoping stocks, and muzzle-mounted grenade launchers (all things convered by the once-upon-a-time Ban On Firearms With Scary Aesthetic Features, which you (and the individual in the video) would know if you ever bothered to do your homewor).
It is interesting you say that. Do you then propose that our entire legal system is a farce based on a lie? Last I checked, determining, identifying, and isolating motives and intents was one of the key elements in court – so should we toss out every court decision ever made on the basis of your individual opinion?
I guess I should not be surprised at such a statement, given that it was coming from a professed criminal.
In point of fact, it has everything to do with her motives. The woman in the video is attempting to change people’s minds, scare people, encourage people to support legislation abridging other people’s rights, and otherwise adopt her opinion, yet she is doing so without having the faintest clue what she is talking about. She is speaking from unbridled, uncontrolled ignorance.
The only question becomes whether that ignorance is willful or not. If it is not, then she is simply an idiot, and her motives are relatively moot, and probably benign – idiots should be tolerated, but people should never bother to take them seriously. If her ignorance is willful (which I tend to believe it is, given the amount of information that is literally at our fingertips these days), then she is intentionally and maliciously trying to mislead people. That speaks volumes as to her motives, and I cannot say as though it is saying good things.
As usual, MikeB302000 cannot tell truth from falshood, and when the falsehoods in question just happen to correspond to his own personal beliefs (and Lord knows his beliefs could never be wrong), he clings to them despite all evidence to the contrary. As I was saying about idiots…
“It’s attempting to read into the minds of people to determine what their true motives are. No one can do that.”
Isn’t that what you do to us gun owners every day, try and read into our minds?
Although MikeB, you come up with the same damn answer, we’re apparently not to be trusted, and need to have all of our rights violated in some way in the name of public safety. You really sound like Dubya, you know that?
I think they use cosmetic features because they don’t know how else to do it. Maybe there is no way.
You guys may be right about the real intent of gun control people. Some for sure are like you say. Some are not.
Linoge, You should heed that great remark made a few weeks ago right here on Sebastian’s blog.
“More like Uncle, good; more like Linoge, bad.”
I think they use cosmetic features because they don’t know how else to do it. Maybe there is no way.
There isn’t, because there’s no functional distinction between semi-automatic rifles that are assault weapons, and those that are not. The reason you have the cosmetic language is because they are unable, politically, to ban semi-automatic firearms as a whole because they are common and ubiquitous, so they try to ban a subset of them, based on cosmetic features that allow the public to believe it’s military weapons that are at issue, when every military in the world is issuing assault rifles to its troops, which are already highly regulated.
And MikeB302000 once again proves that he has absolutely no understanding of the little concept of “context”… As I was saying about idiots…
I suppose, then, that you have no examples to provide, nor any answer to my question? Shall I simply categorize this as yet another one of your grandiose lies that we have called you on? Especially given your admission that “Some [anti-rights hoplophobes] sure are like you say,” despite you claiming that none of them were in your previous comment? As with some other idiots today, it would do your case a world of good if your lies could not be disproven by your own words and actions on the same page.
And as Sebastian already explained, there is no “maybe” about it – banning “assault weapons” will always rely on aesthetic features, because there is no operational or mechanical difference between “assault weapons” and “normal” semi-automatic rifles. And even you, in your wildest, hoplophobic dreams could never hope to get away with banning all semi-automatic firearms.
The Goldilocks strategy of gun-control no longer works. Now with Heller behind us, God willing, the great rollback of the stupidest anti-gun laws will commence. California first, please.
If you click on their channel, then click favorites, the video comes up. And comments are available.
That said, this video is two years old as are the comments. And those comments take her to task for the same reasons as listed above.
“More like Sebastian, good; more like Linoge, bad.â€
Well, I guess that means all of the answers to my previous questions are “yes”.
Thanks for playing, Mike – you are useless, as always.