The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: alfsauve on January 09, 2009, 10:00:16 PM
-
I sort of skimmed their report to Obama the first time through and there were a couple of errors that jumped out at me.
SO, the Brady Proposal is full of references and I thought I'd see where they got their information. #31 and #32 are the references sited about Florida and those references are???? "The Brady Center" UH WAIT, they reference themselves as a source of their data? In fact over 15 of the 78 references (20%) are either themselves or Change.Org. Now the statements they're making are easy enough to check on Justice Department web sites or other "independent" sites. Why didn't they use these sites as references? Maybe, things just don't add up the way they'd like you to think they do.
SO I got to checking a few more of the references. Ones that actually used an outside source, like #73 "ATF, Assault Weapons Profile". I went to the ATF web site and searched for the exact report name. NOT FOUND. Okay, how about just the exact phrase "assault weapons" plus the words "profile" and "1994". Nope, no report. Now, the report MAY be there, somewhere, but it's not indexed under that name.
I don't think they don't care about the accuracy of the report. OH, I know they don't care about the facts, what I mean is they don't care that their public statements aren't accurate, because those who favor gun control (an emotional issue) aren't going to research the facts. Aren't going to be swayed by the facts. And those who oppose gun control already know the facts. Nobody in the MSM is to call their hand on these references. If you or I were doing a report, one that we knew was really factual, we'd at least try to make all the references to third parties. We'd make all the references stand up to at least basic research.
This is all just posturing with the Obama administration and with congress. The "real" facts don't matter. Just the fact that the report "appears" official is all that counts. Pelosi, Shumer, et. al. can posture in Congress and wave the Brady document about: "We have the official report. We have the facts."
I hope someone (NRAILA) with more time on their hands than I can go through every reference and compile a list of the errors.
-
I know they don't care about the facts, what I mean is they don't care that their public statements aren't accurate, because those who favor gun control (an emotional issue) aren't going to research the facts. Aren't going to be swayed by the facts.
The touchy feelly people are determined to push us into the abyss.
-
On the other hand, this could be useful with the congress critters, noting that the Brady report, especially if the congress critter references it, is seriously flawed and the critter ought to be doing a lot better. A subtle way to let the critters know we are watching.
-
Good grief..... great report, Alfsuave
-
Alf,
We can only hope all the pro-gun associations have researchers like you!
-
+1 on that! I too wondered about their "references" but I didn't take the time to look them up as I figured they were mostly misrepresented, or worse. I glad that you did the preliminary work to make look good ( in my OWN mind). ;) ;) ;) ;D
-
Pelosi, Shumer, et. al. can posture in Congress and wave the Brady document about: "We have the official report. We have the facts."
Forgot to add the MSM will be quoting the Brady FACTS to the masses who will in turn pass them on as gospel.
Sad, sad, sad.
-
Thats because the media truly accepts the "facts" as gospel. I have never given them credit for being as smart as we think they are..... Conspiracy theories abound about the media, but I think it is more actual stupidity then a well orchestrated conspiracy.
-
oh come on, I love that dramatic chart they have that shows how the drop in assault-weapon related crime dropped by 60% during the ban. Never mind that it was a drop from an already negligible 6% to 3.5% (or somewhere in that neighborhood) of all crimes.
-
Thats because the media truly accepts the "facts" as gospel. I have never given them credit for being as smart as we think they are..... Conspiracy theories abound about the media, but I think it is more actual stupidity then a well orchestrated conspiracy.
+10, The Brady bunch are not like us, we try to pass on information, they engage in propaganda. That's why they have "strategy sessions" where they come up with phrases like "assault weapon" that are intentionally designed to confuse the majority of people who are not fire arms enthusiasts and therefore aren't aware of technical facts. For example, Jim Zumbo, a HUNTING writer, probably spent a lot of ink praising the .223 as a HUNTING cartridge, then he destroyed his career by condemning the AR 15 in 5.56 as "a terrorist weapon" because he was a HUNTER, not a "gun guy" he did not realize the ONLY difference between the AR and any other .223 is the color.(yes I know about .223/5.56 chamber variations, but for this post that is not relevant ) Remington makes a semi automatic .308 hunting rifle (the Mod 750 Woodsmaster ) what is the difference between that and an AR 10, HK 91, or FN FAL ? The average person will tell you the Remington is a HUNTING rifle, and the others are "assault weapons". The fact is that there is only one REAL difference, Manufacturer.
Our hardest job is to educate the masses and shine a spot light on the misrepresentations and out right lies being spread by those who wish to under mine our civil liberties. We must ALWAYS challenge the media and demand a correction when they use terms like "semi auto machine gun" which I saw in a previously posted news story.
-
Remington 7600 is slide action. They do produce an AR rifle in .308 (the R25)
The Browning BAR, however is a semi auto hunting rifle.
-
Remington 7600 is slide action. They do produce an AR rifle in .308 (the R25)
The Browning BAR, however is a semi auto hunting rifle.
I'll check their website and edit that, I'm pretty sure they make or made one similar to the BAR, I did not use that because of the confusion with the WWII military BAR.
Thank's Eric.
-
I'll check their website and edit that, I'm pretty sure they make or made one similar to the BAR, I did not use that because of the confusion with the WWII military BAR.
Thank's Eric.
Correct, and that is why it would also be on the ban list -- because of its military origins. However, in its current form it would make a great poster child for the lunacy of the all encompassing ban that antis are presenting.... the masses would never view this beautiful work of art as anything but a hunting rifle:
(http://dmp.veldt.org/BARMARK2.JPG)
-
Found it! Remington 742:
(http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/upfiles/93251/B9CA7F63115E48D2AC781DE55F9A11F4.jpg)
http://www.remington.com/library/history/firearm_models/centerfire/model_742.asp
or
Remington 7400
(http://www.remington.com/images/library/history/models/7400wd%5B1%5D.jpg)
http://www.remington.com/library/history/firearm_models/centerfire/model_7400.asp
-
750 was the first one I found ;D
-
Maybe this would help those ARs to look less menacing and perhaps keep them off of the endangered species list:
(http://www.lakesideguns.com/title1/indxlm7wlnt550.jpg)
More here:
http://www.lakesideguns.com/title1/walnut.html
http://www.tacticalrifles.net/tactical_fal15.asp
-
He got a "woody" ;D
-
you don't need facts when you have emotions.
-
Found it! Remington 742:
(http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/upfiles/93251/B9CA7F63115E48D2AC781DE55F9A11F4.jpg)
http://www.remington.com/library/history/firearm_models/centerfire/model_742.asp
My wife uses a 742.....I guess she's an 'Evil Assault Wife" now by the liberal standards.
-
I don't think there is a gun on the market that can't trace its roots back to being a miltary arm.
lets just hit some of the popular gun catagorys. At one time a miltary arm... currently a miltary arm.
lever action... yes...no
bolt action... yes...yes
pump action... yes..yes
gas operated... yes...yes
recoil operated... yes...yes
blow back...yes...yes
Direct gas system... yes...yes
gas piston... yes...yes
roling block... yes... no
break action...yes...no
revoling cylinder... yes...yes
recipercating barrel...yes...yes
Is there are firearm that does not fit one of these?
-
I don't think there is a gun on the market that can't trace its roots back to being a miltary arm.
lets just hit some of the popular gun catagorys. At one time a miltary arm... currently a miltary arm.
lever action... yes...no
bolt action... yes...yes
pump action... yes..yes
gas operated... yes...yes
recoil operated... yes...yes
blow back...yes...yes
Direct gas system... yes...yes
gas piston... yes...yes
roling block... yes... no
break action...yes...no
revoling cylinder... yes...yes
recipercating barrel...yes...yes
Is there are firearm that does not fit one of these?
We're left with muzzle loaders. Ooops. We're left with 5 lbs of black powder and muzzle loaders under 50 cal.
-
Those are not "firearms" atleast under federal law.
-
I don't think there is a gun on the market that can't trace its roots back to being a miltary arm.
lets just hit some of the popular gun catagorys. At one time a miltary arm... currently a miltary arm.
lever action... yes...no
bolt action... yes...yes
pump action... yes..yes
gas operated... yes...yes
recoil operated... yes...yes
blow back...yes...yes
Direct gas system... yes...yes
gas piston... yes...yes
roling block... yes... no
break action...yes...no
revoling cylinder... yes...yes
recipercating barrel...yes...yes
Is there are firearm that does not fit one of these?
You missed the "match lock",Flint lock, Cap lock, and "hand cannon" and yes they were all developed for military use, though I don't think even 3rd world countries are using them any more there are probably still some in the far back corner of an armory somewhere.
I didn't realize there was another page when I first posted this, but to answer TAB. just because they are not CURRENTLY classed as firearms means nothing. The only difference is that they do not use pre assembled ammunition. over look that detail and a Springfield rifled musket becomes an "assault weapon", a "military rifle" that , as the messiah said, has no place in our society.
Anti's suck.
-
Anyone thats seen the damage a muzzle loader can do to a deer will call it an assult weapon. it really is amazing how much damage a big hunk of lead going slow can do.
-
Anyone thats seen the damage a muzzle loader can do to a deer will call it an assult weapon. it really is amazing how much damage a big hunk of lead going slow can do.
It has to do, partly, with the softer lead alloy used in, for example, a Minie bullet. during the Civil war it was found that bullets were shattering, rather than penetrating, bone in their path. This was part of the reason for the high percentage of gun shot wounds to arms and legs that resulted in amputation.
-
It has to do, partly, with the softer lead alloy used in, for example, a Minie bullet. during the Civil war it was found that bullets were shattering, rather than penetrating, bone in their path. This was part of the reason for the high percentage of gun shot wounds to arms and legs that resulted in amputation.
Sometimes they were also known to shatter like a grenade after glancing off a large bone (like a femur), causing large amounts of vascular damage. Even if the bone itself remained intact, this led to amputation due to massive circulation loss in the limb. Primitive medicine had no way to repair the many damaged blood vessels and gangrene would soon set in. Amputation was basically a 'fast' remedy.