One example of Hillary's blatant lies

[Iroc Joe]

OK Kryptix, this is for you.

Source:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm

July 12, 2007. The 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum:

Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?

A: I think it's important to remember that the crime rate was driven down, & gun violence was driven down in the 1990s because of a combination of policies, like 100,000 police on the street and getting assault weapons off the street, and because of a growing economy. 22 million new jobs gave people who were hopeless a better chance for a future. So I want to get back to what works. This administration has tried to kill the 100,000 police. You've got mayors whose police force is outgunned by the criminals and the gang-bangers. Assault weapons are back on the street. We've got to go and do what works again. In addition to having policies that will get guns off the street, we do have to give young men particularly a better chance of a future that includes educational & economic opportunities & second chances when they get caught up in the criminal justice system.

Hmm, sounds almost credible in theory, except we must look at the facts. The "assault weapons ban" only banned certain cosmetic features of some firearms . The fact remained, citizens were still able to purchase the same semi-automatic AR-15 and AK-47 "assault weapons" as before the ban, just without a couple of cosmetic parts including collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, etc. This is of course public knowledge, I even purchased a "ban-era" AR-15 during the ban. Now, I will post two pictures, one is what was made when they were "banned," and a "pre-ban" rifle.

This is a "pre-ban" rifle available before the 1994 AWB, and again available after the sunset of the AWB in 2004:
http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/images/ssi/13234.jpg

This is a rifle that was legally produced and sold during the AWB:
http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/images/ssi/29487.jpg

Now perhaps you can tell me how she can honestly say they took assault weapons off the street when the same rifle was available for sale during the AWB?

[Josh]

:lmao:

[Iroc Joe]

Just to drive the point home a little more, here is an example of a "ban-era" AK-47. Again, these were legally produced and sold in gun shops across the country:
http://www.saysuncle.com/images/commiegun.JPG

And here is a "pre-ban" that is now available again:
http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/akgpwasr.jpg

So, I'll ask the same question. How can she tell people these "evil" weapons were off our streets in the 1990s, and it helped reduce crime, and only now are they available again?

[Kryptix]

Is this all you got? ahahaha

Taken from the assault weapons ban article from wiki whcih includes several legitimate sources from all points of view. Also note, Hillary was saying that with a combination of policies such as 100,000 police, the assault weapons ban and a growing economy gun crime was reduced. Crimes commited with an assault weapon were reduced by 66% according to the ATF which perhaps prevented 60,000 deaths compared to the previous 10 years. In March 2004, Kristen Rand, the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, criticized the soon-to-expire ban by stating "The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, UZIs, AR-15s and other assault weapons. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994."

Assault Weapons are back on the street? Would I say Hillary told a blatant lie? No because I'd be overexagerating. I would read the rest of her statement and take it into consideration.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban#Effect_on_crime
Effect on crime
An unpublished 2004 study commissioned by the DOJ found that "Assault weapons (AW) were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the assault weapons used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles. Large capacity magazines (LCM) are used in crime much more often than and accounted for 14% to 26% of guns used in crime prior to the ban... The ban’s influence on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement...Nonetheless, reducing criminal use of assault weapons and especially large capacity magazines could have nontrivial effects on gunshot victimizations. The few available studies suggest that attacks with semiautomatics – including AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines – result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms."[5]

A 1999 preliminary study commissioned by the US Department of Justice done on the Assault Weapons Ban found that the "limited [study] time frame weakens the ability of statistical tests to discern effects that may be meaningful from a policy perspective", therefore the ban’s "short-term influence on gun violence has been uncertain, due perhaps to the continuing availability of grandfathered assault weapons, close substitute guns and large capacity magazines, and the relative rarity with which the banned weapons were used in gun violence even before the ban"[6]

The Violence Policy Center blames technicalities. "Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts. The VPC estimates that more than one million assault weapons have been manufactured since the ban's passage in 1994."[7] By another point of view, manufacturers responded precisely to the changing legal requirements, making and selling exactly what was permitted.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in a 2004 report entitled On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act.[8] The report looked at 1.4 million guns involved in crime and determined that "since the law’s enactment ... assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime — a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate" and that the Act prevented 60,000 assault weapon crimes over its 10-year period.

In 2001, Koper and Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, published a peer-reviewed paper called The Impact (sic) of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation. They found that:

"The ban may have contributed to a reduction in gun homicides, but a statistical power analysis of our model indicated that any likely effects from the ban will be very difficult to detect statistically for several more years. We found no evidence of reductions in multiple-victim gun homicides or multiple-gunshot wound victimizations. The findings should be treated cautiously due to the methodological difficulties of making a short-term assessment of the ban and because the ban's long-term effects could differ from the short-term influences revealed by this study."[9]

[Kryptix]

Hmm, sounds almost credible in theory, except we must look at the facts. The "assault weapons ban" only banned certain cosmetic features of some firearms . The fact remained, citizens were still able to purchase the same semi-automatic AR-15 and AK-47 "assault weapons" as before the ban, just without a couple of cosmetic parts including collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, etc. This is of course public knowledge, I even purchased a "ban-era" AR-15 during the ban. Now, I will post two pictures, one is what was made when they were "banned," and a "pre-ban" rifle.


The facts:
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was only a small part (title XI, subtitle A) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

The act created a definition of "assault weapons" and subjected firearms that met that definition to regulation. Nineteen models of firearms were defined by name as being "assault weapons". Various semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns were classified as "assault weapons" due to having various combinations of features.

The act addressed only semi-automatic firearms, that is, firearms that fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. Neither the AWB nor its expiration changed the legal status of fully automatic firearms, which fire more than one round with a single trigger-pull; these had long been regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

The act separately defined and banned "large capacity ammunition feeding devices", which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than an arbitrary number of rounds. These ammunition feeding devices were also referred to in the media and popular culture as "high capacity magazines or feeding devices. Depending on the locality, the cutoff between a "normal" capacity and "high" capacity magazine was 7, 10, 15, or 20 rounds. The federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds.

During the period in which the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's definition of an "assault weapon" or "large capacity ammunition feeding device", except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. Possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms was outlawed as well, but the law did not ban the possession or sale of pre-existing "assault weapons" or "large capacity ammunition feeding devices". This provision for "pre-ban" weapons created a higher price point in the market for such items, which lasted until the ban's sunset.

Two events involving military-style semi-automatic rifles in the late 1980s and the early 1990s were used as examples by proponents for the ban's enactment. These incidents included:

The January 17, 1989, schoolyard shooting in Stockton, California, in which the murderer killed five children and wounded 30 others before shooting himself (also known as Stockton massacre); a semi-automatic version of the AK-47 was used in the murders.
The January 25, 1993, murder of two people in front of Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Langley, Virginia, by Mir Aimal Kansi; using another semi-automatic version of the AK-47.

[Josh]

:lmao:

[Kryptix]

Taken from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994


Title XI, subtitle A, known as the Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban, outlawed the manufacture of any semiautomatic rifle that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, AND which has two or more of the following features:

A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A flash suppressor
A grenade launcher
A bayonet lug
This section took effect September 13, 1994, and expired automatically through a sunset provision on September 13, 2004.

The National Rifle Association argued that the ban violated the Constitution's 2nd Amendment. (See Firearm case law).

It must be noted that there is a distinct difference between an "assault weapon" and an "assault rifle". In brief, an assault rifle is a military shoulder-fired rifle that is designed as a compromise between the long-range (up to 500m/550 yards) accuracy of an high-powered single-shot service rifle such as the Mauser K98 or M1 Garand with the close-quarters (<100m/110 yards) fully-automatic firepower of a pistol-ammunition-shooting submachine gun such as the Tommy Gun or Uzi. These firearms fire ammunition midrange between the two extremes, such as the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO or the 7.62x39mm Russian, and are capable of fully-automatic fire.

The term "assault weapon" is commonly (albeit incorrectly) applied to firearms that contain certain capabilities that are military in origin, such as large-capacity magazines, bayonet mounting hardware, or pistol grips.

Many modern small capacity magazine civilian rifles sold for sporting purposes, such as bolt-action hunting rifles, are often chambered for more powerful ammunition than the cartridges the M16 or AK-47 shoot, in order to achieve greater distances for hunting purposes.

[Josh]

just keep diggin that hole :lol:

[blurboEK]

just keep diggin that hole :lol:

+1! Give me a break. The AWB was a complete joke, had ZERO impact on crime and it mearly banned cosmetics on firearms. All the gun companies had to do was remove these "evil" options and they could legally produce the exact same gun. And what is the point of a ban if I can purchase a rifle/gun made before the ban with all of the "evil" options and be 100% legal? I've already posted facts on this bs ban.

[jabtay]

Most of the assault weapons used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles.
Next on the list is the assault baseball bat, the assault automobile, the assault beer bottle! Everyone better stock up on Wii controllers before they make the list too!!!!

[blurboEK]

Next on the list is the assault baseball bat, the assault automobile, the assault beer bottle! Everyone better stock up on Wii controllers before they make the list too!!!!

all of those items are fine so long as you do not paint them black and add a pistol grip.. :lol:

[BAMF]

Abortion was the largest factor which drove down ALL crime rates. You heard it here. Now investigate it. Or read my favorate perfectly cited non-biased book fo all time, Freakonomics.

Disclaimer: Anti-abortion, right wing die hard conservatives won't believe the truth even after reading it, so don't bother. :)

[blurboEK]

Abortion was the largest factor which drove down ALL crime rates. You heard it here. Now investigate it. Or read my favorate perfectly cited non-biased book fo all time, Freakonomics.

Disclaimer: Anti-abortion, right wing die hard conservatives won't believe the truth even after reading it, so don't bother. :)

anti-abortion people can fuck off.. if you're not the one pregnant you should have zero say in what the mother chooses to do..

[Topless T/A]

Does anybody actually have any information to dispute the facts that Kryptix just posted, or is this just another "those facts are lies because I don't believe it" deal that we're all so famous for?

[BAMF]

Does anybody actually have any information to dispute the facts that Kryptix just posted, or is this just another "those facts are lies because I don't believe it" deal that we're all so famous for?

Freakonomics. Read the citations. There are my facts. And yes, there are a LOT of citations from sources around teh world that support my position pretty solidly. Thats as much effort as I'll put into it for this forum.

[BAMF]

anti-abortion people can fuck off.. if you're not the one pregnant you should have zero say in what the mother chooses to do..

Tell that to the right-wingers who think that their values are somehow automatically the right ones. There are plenty of them lurking here.

[Iroc Joe]

Does anybody actually have any information to dispute the facts that Kryptix just posted, or is this just another "those facts are lies because I don't believe it" deal that we're all so famous for?

I don't have time right now, I'm at work.

However, he can post all the "facts" he wants. I proved my point with actual pictures. Oh, and about the standard capacity magazine issue. We all just bought pre-ban magazines during the ban. Used USGI AR-15 30 round magazines were $20 each at every gun shop.

Honestly, look at his list of facts. Then, look at the actual photos of banned, and ban compliant weapons. Then, tell me with a straight face how she can claim those "evil assault weapons" were taken off our streets when they were readily available at any gun shop.

[Topless T/A]

I don't have time right now, I'm at work.

However, he can post all the "facts" he wants. I proved my point with actual pictures. Oh, and about the standard capacity magazine issue. We all just bought pre-ban magazines during the ban. Used USGI AR-15 30 round magazines were $20 each at every gun shop.

Honestly, look at his list of facts. Then, look at the actual photos of banned, and ban compliant weapons. Then, tell me with a straight face how she can claim those "evil assault weapons" were taken off our streets when they were readily available at any gun shop.

Well I understand your pictures and all, but I guess this is what I find most interesting that I'm wondering if anyone has any information to refute :

The report looked at 1.4 million guns involved in crime and determined that "since the law’s enactment ... assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime — a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate" and that the Act prevented 60,000 assault weapon crimes over its 10-year period.

[BAMF]

Well I understand your pictures and all, but I guess this is what I find most interesting that I'm wondering if anyone has any information to refute :

Simple. Correlation is NOT causation. Especially not with such skimpy backing as that wiki article gave.

[Iroc Joe]

Well I understand your pictures and all, but I guess this is what I find most interesting that I'm wondering if anyone has any information to refute :

C'mon, you should know better than that.

For 10 years, "assault weapons" were banned in this country, they were not being manufactured or sold except to military and LE agencies. Those ban compliant rifles were not "assault weapons." Get it now?

BTW, a regular Glock 17 or Beretta 92FS or Sig P226 handgun, which are found in the majority of police holsters in this country, as well as in the hands of numerous private citizens, were "assault weapons" because they have a magazine capacity of greater than 10. That means if someone had a Glock 17 with pre-ban 17 round magazines and use it in a crime, it was a crime with an "assault weapon." Yet if someone commits the same crime with the same Glock 17 using a ban-era 10 round magazine, it is not using an "assault weapon."

Like I said, you of all people should not have fallen for that..

[Topless T/A]

C'mon, you should know better than that.

For 10 years, "assault weapons" were banned in this country, they were not being manufactured or sold except to military and LE agencies. Those ban compliant rifles were not "assault weapons." Get it now?

BTW, a regular Glock 17 or Beretta 92FS or Sig P226 handgun, which are found in the majority of police holsters in this country, as well as in the hands of numerous private citizens, were "assault weapons" because they have a magazine capacity of greater than 10. That means if someone had a Glock 17 with pre-ban 17 round magazines and use it in a crime, it was a crime with an "assault weapon." Yet if someone commits the same crime with the same Glock 17 using a ban-era 10 round magazine, it is not using an "assault weapon."

Like I said, you of all people should not have fallen for that..

Hey I'm just asking questions here :lol:....all in the name of gathering info from both sides

[blurboEK]

As I posted in another thread..

Some info on "Assault Weapons" & Semi-Autos..

In the late 1980s, gun control supporters invented the slang term, “assault weapon,” to refer to semi-automatic firearms that look like modern military rifles. Since then, they have tried to ban virtually all semi-automatic and pump-action firearms as “assault weapons.” “Assault weapon” bans should be rejected because:

So-called “assault weapons” have never been used in more than 1%-2% of violent crimes reported by police and imprisoned felons,1 and in 0.25% of violent crimes reported by crime victims.2 Congress’ study found that the guns were used in “a modest fraction of all gun murders.”3 Knives, clubs and bare hands are used in about 22 times more murders.4

Guns don’t cause crime. There are more guns than ever, and the number rises by 4½ million a year.5 Meanwhile, the nation’s violent crime rate has fallen 38% since 1991.6 The FBI does not list guns or “gun control” as a “crime factor.”7 The CDC and Library of Congress report that there is no evidence that “gun control” reduces crime.8

Gun bans don’t reduce crime. After its 1989 “assault weapon” ban, California’s murder rate increased every year for five years, 26% overall. California banned more guns as of January 2000 and murder has since increased 13%, while it is unchanged in the rest of the country.9 Even the radical anti-gun group, Violence Policy Center, says, “You can’t argue with a straight face that the [federal] ban has been effective.”10

Gun bans can’t reduce crime. Guns are used in only ¼ of violent crimes reported to police, and in only 7% of those reported in victim surveys.11 Criminals can always get guns, and commit crimes with virtually any gun.

Millions of Americans use semi-autos and pump-actions for hunting and target shooting that would be banned under federal and/or state “assault weapon” bills.12 For example, the Remington Models 7400 and 7600, and Browning BAR are popular deer rifles. Remington’s Model 1100 and Beretta’s Model 391 shotguns are widely used for hunting and sport shooting. The Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A are the nation’s most popular rifles for marksmanship competitions. Ruger Ranch Rifles and 10/22s are popular hunting and plinking rifles.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says it can “in no way vouch for the validity”13 of Brady Campaign’s claim14 that the federal “assault weapon” law reduced crime. Brady mischaracterized BATFE’s firearm chain-of-commerce traces, which the Congressional Research Service says “are not accurate indicators” of criminal gun use.15 Most guns that are traced have not been used to commit violent crimes, and most guns used to commit violent crimes are never traced.

FBI reports16 contradict Violence Policy Center’s claim about “assault weapons” and the police.17 FBI incident summaries indicate that the guns are rarely used to kill police officers.

“Gun control” supporters are wrong, in trying to exploit the D.C. “sniper” and Columbine crimes. The gun used in the D.C. crimes, and three of the four guns used in Columbine, were not “assault weapons.” Also, in each of the D.C. crimes only one shot was fired, and in Columbine the killers fired slowly, moving casually between victims. The guns used in these crimes had no bearing on their outcomes.

Semi-automatics are not machine guns. Machine guns, which fire continously as long as the trigger is depressed, are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. By comparison, semi-automatics, like other guns, fire only one shot at a time.

Semi-automatics are not “more powerful” than other guns. Semi-auto rifles and shotguns use the same ammunition as other guns. Semi-auto pistols use ammunition comparable to, but shaped differently than, revolver ammunition. The AK-47, which anti-gun groups call “high powered,” is less powerful than the modestly-powered .30-30 Winchester, the most popular deer rifle in American history.

“Pistol grips” have nothing to do with how a gun fires. Claims that “pistol grips” are designed for “spray-firing from the hip” are nonsense. No gun is designed to be held at “the hip,” and the shape of a grip has nothing to do with a gun’s firing mechanism.

AK-47s and Uzis,” constantly mentioned by “gun control” supporters, did not become legal to import when the federal “assault weapon” law expired. As noted by Congress’ study, those guns were prohibited under federal firearm importation law in 1989.

Source : http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=160&issue=019

References:
1. Police reports: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns, 1997; Dave Kopel, “Rational Basis Analysis for ‘Assault Weapon’ Prohibition,” (www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/rational.htm). Felon surveys: Bureau of Justice Statistics: “Survey of State Prison Inmates 1991” (3/93), “Guns Used in Crime” (7/95), “Firearm Use by Offenders” (11/01) (www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pubalp2.htm).
2. Victim surveys: Kleck, p.112. National Crime Victimization Surveys identify many crimes not reported to police.
3. Roth, Koper, et al., Urban Institute, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” 3/13/97 (www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/aw_final.pdf).
4. FBI, Crime in the United States 2006, Table 7 (www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html). Knives, 12%; clubs, 4%; hands, 6%.
5. BATFE, Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002 and Commerce in Firearms in the United States 2002 (www.atf.gov/pub/#Firearms).
6. FBI and BJS (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm).
7. FBI, (www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/about/variables_affecting_crime.html).
8. CDC, “First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws,” Oct. 3, 2003. Library of Congress, “Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries,” May 1998.
9. Note 6.
10. Rick Montgomery, “Clock ticking on assault gun ban,” Kansas City Star, May 2, 2004.
11. FBI and NCVS (www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0204.pdf) (Table 66).
12. The anti-gun Legal Community Against Violence’s “model law” for state and local “assault weapon” bans defines “assault weapon” to include detachable-magazine pump-action center-fire and rimfire rifles.
13. Torsten Ove, “Assault weapon ban’s effectiveness debated,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 3/26/04.
14. Brady Campaign, “On Target” (www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/200403/on_target.pdf).
15. Report for Congress:“Assault Weapons”: Military-Style Semi-Automatic Firearms Facts and Issues, 5/13/92.
16. FBI, annual Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted reports (www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#leoka).
17. Violence Policy Center, “Officer Down” (www.vpc.org/studies/officecont.htm).

Must be bias since it's from the NRA and not a more reputable source like the Brady Campaign though.. :roll:

[Iroc Joe]

all the bickering about technicalities aside, I posted pictures of banned, and ban-compliant firearms. Then I dared Kryptix to answer as to how she can say she removed those evil "assault weapons" from the streets when they were clearly available for purchase the whole time.

I STILL have yet to receive an actual answer, just the usual skirt the issue and try to spin bullshit.

[PPGMD]

I've always said there are three types of lies: Lies, Damned Dirty Lies, and Statistics.

[Iroc Joe]

I've always said there are three types of lies: Lies, Damned Dirty Lies, and Statistics.

I took managerial statistics at UT. Statistics can be manipulated so easily, they mean jack shit.

[Iroc Joe]

P.S. Kryptix, I'm still waiting.

[Billy]

Don't worry...Obama understands the issue just fine. In a letter many people have received when asking about his stance on firearms....

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me about gun laws and the Second Amendment. I
appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. Americans broadly
agree that guns must be kept from those who may pose a threat, and that the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen should be protected.

We must work to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of
criminals or the mentally ill through an effective background check system. We also have to strike a reasonable balance between public safety and sportsmen's rights.

I will continue to work for effective gun laws, including reinstatement
of the assault weapons ban that the last Congress allowed to expire, and
effective law enforcement. I will also speak out against the culture of
violence that traps so many of our young people.

Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue.


Sincerely,

Barack Obama

[Billy]

Don't worry Joe, I asked a similiar question yesterday and never got a response either.

There are those words again....."logical" and "common sense". They get tossed around a lot.

So, since you did bring it up please tell me what the assault weapon ban of '94 really accomplished, other than feel-good legislation.

Banned...

http://www.mountsplus.com/miva/graphics/00000001/STT-MINI14-62160B.jpg

Not Banned...

http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/imgs/mini14.jpg

What is the difference between these two rifles that should make one illegal and much more feared than the other?




And a lot can change in 4 years, but it's also the idea of starting down a path that many of us don't want to see; paving the way for more things we don't want to see in the future.

[moldyhands]

while i agree the assault weapons ban was totally useless, i think the other statements she made - more police and better economy - are definitely crime deterrents. she spoke to that most of the speech, so i understand if guns are your thing that you'd get upset by this, but to only focus on the gun thing is to ignore a good part of her logic.

[Iroc Joe]

while i agree the assault weapons ban was totally useless, i think the other statements she made - more police and better economy - are definitely crime deterrents. she spoke to that most of the speech, so i understand if guns are your thing that you'd get upset by this, but to only focus on the gun thing is to ignore a good part of her logic.

No, I don't disagree with her stance there. I completely agree. That does not detract from the fact she blatantly lied.

Kryptix, I'm waiting...

[PPGMD]

while i agree the assault weapons ban was totally useless, i think the other statements she made - more police and better economy - are definitely crime deterrents. she spoke to that most of the speech, so i understand if guns are your thing that you'd get upset by this, but to only focus on the gun thing is to ignore a good part of her logic.

Police are useless if the laws aren't enforced in the court room with long prison sentences.

[DSG]

Police are useless if the laws aren't enforced in the court room with long prison sentences.


And this is the heart of the problem folk. PPGMD hit the nail right on the head.

My rights should not infringed upon because liberal judges wont enforce the law and punish criminals.

[DSG]

This is a "pre-ban" rifle available before the 1994 AWB, and again available after the sunset of the AWB in 2004:
http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/images/ssi/13234.jpg

This is a rifle that was legally produced and sold during the AWB:
http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/images/ssi/29487.jpg

Now perhaps you can tell me how she can honestly say they took assault weapons off the street when the same rifle was available for sale during the AWB?


I'll take the one with the bayonet stud please....LMAO

[Kryptix]

Gun Control supporters invented the slang term Assault Weapon? :lmao: You guys can say whatever you want but guess what. This is a non-issue. This isn't a blatant lie. You have nothing and you want her to die in a plane crash because of this. You posted pictures but as you can see they are different. The gun manufacturers worked around the bill. Why don't you explain the differences in the pre-ban guns and the ban guns in those pictures you posted?

:lmao:

[DSG]

Gun Control supporters invented the slang term Assault Weapon? :lmao: You guys can say whatever you want but guess what. This is a non-issue. This isn't a blatant lie. You have nothing and you want her to die in a plane crash because of this. You posted pictures but as you can see they are different. The gun manufacturers worked around the bill. Why don't you explain the differences in the pre-ban guns and the ban guns in those pictures you posted?

:lmao:

Why dont you explain the differences? I already named one.

[blurboEK]

Gun Control supporters invented the slang term Assault Weapon? :lmao: You guys can say whatever you want but guess what. This is a non-issue. This isn't a blatant lie. You have nothing and you want her to die in a plane crash because of this. You posted pictures but as you can see they are different. The gun manufacturers worked around the bill. Why don't you explain the differences in the pre-ban guns and the ban guns in those pictures you posted?

:lmao:

As you can clearly see in the pictures posted the differences are merely cosmetic. The still serve the same purpose..

[Billy]

That's your answer? Really?

The only differences between the rifles Joe and I posted are cosmetic. There is nothing different about the operational parts of them. They function the same and fire the same ammunition at the same rate of fire, at the same speed and with the same energy.

[BAMF]

Gun Control supporters invented the slang term Assault Weapon? :lmao: You guys can say whatever you want but guess what. This is a non-issue. This isn't a blatant lie. You have nothing and you want her to die in a plane crash because of this. You posted pictures but as you can see they are different. The gun manufacturers worked around the bill. Why don't you explain the differences in the pre-ban guns and the ban guns in those pictures you posted?

:lmao:

Uhh...its the same gun. They're both just as deadly as eachother, because they're the same gun. One just looks more badass. What about that can't you wrap your head around?

[DSG]

That's your answer? Really?

The only differences between the rifles Joe and I posted are cosmetic. There is nothing different about the operational parts of them. They function the same and fire the same ammunition at the same rate of fire, at the same speed and with the same energy.

They just dont understand that.

[Billy]

They just dont understand that.

Not only that, but there have been blatant lies shown by the media and other outlets trying to misinform members of the population that doesn't know otherwise.

I'm looking for the CNN video now....

[Kryptix]

WTH? I've already posted everything I could possibly say. I gave you statistics that showed the violence was down. The difference in those guns is one is a assault rifle and the other is not as defined by the assault weapons ban. Also, one has a smaller magazine and can't hold a s many bullets. In the bill assault rifles were allowed while assault weapons were not. SOunds kinda silly to me but this isn't a thread about how silly the ban is. It's a thread about how Hillary made a blatant lie. If I were to revise the bill knowing that assault weapons were only around 2% of all gun crimes I would have banned them entirely. As you can see over a 10 year period that 2% amounts to 60,000 deaths.

[Kryptix]

Uhh...its the same gun. They're both just as deadly as eachother, because they're the same gun. One just looks more badass. What about that can't you wrap your head around?
I understand that. But the numbers show. Perhaps people didn't like the cosmetic difference so they avoided pruchasing the gun? :lol:

[DSG]

WTH? I've already posted everything I could possibly say. I gave you statistics that showed the violence was down. The difference in those guns is one is a assault rifle and the other is not as defined by the assault weapons ban. Also, one has a smaller magazine and can't hold a s many bullets. In the bill assault rifles were allowed while assault weapons were not. SOunds kinda silly to me but this isn't a thread about how silly the ban is. It's a thread about how Hillary made a blatant lie. If I were to revise the bill knowing that assault weapons were only around 2% of all gun crimes I would have banned them entirely. As you can see over a 10 year period that 2% amounts to 60,000 deaths.



You just don't get it do you? Banning guns is not the way to solve the problem.

Please tell me why I should have my rights taken away because the Govt cant/wont stop CRIMINALS? The Govt is soft on crime and hard on law abiding citizens because the good guys for the most part will just roll over. It's easier to go after the good guys than to punish criminals, now isnt it? This is the root of the problem...NOT GUNS. Heck Brady was shot with a .22 cal pistol. Why dont they ban those?

People need to be held accountable for there own action instead of blaming guns.

[PPGMD]

I understand that. But the numbers show. Perhaps people didn't like the cosmetic difference so they avoided pruchasing the gun? :lol:

Actually not, AR-15 sales increased during the ban years. Anyways assault weapon crime is a very very small percentage of crime, so small that they don't even separate it from other rifles.

Also assault pistols is laughable, Glock 19 (one of the most popular Glocks) has a 15 round capacity normally and takes a half a second to reload, how is a 10 round magazine going to stop someone that is going already commit a crime and murder someone?

[Iroc Joe]

WTH? I've already posted everything I could possibly say. I gave you statistics that showed the violence was down. The difference in those guns is one is a assault rifle and the other is not as defined by the assault weapons ban. Also, one has a smaller magazine and can't hold a s many bullets. In the bill assault rifles were allowed while assault weapons were not. SOunds kinda silly to me but this isn't a thread about how silly the ban is. It's a thread about how Hillary made a blatant lie. If I were to revise the bill knowing that assault weapons were only around 2% of all gun crimes I would have banned them entirely. As you can see over a 10 year period that 2% amounts to 60,000 deaths.

Again, facts dictate otherwise. We were all able to purchase standard capacity magazines during the ban. So you are indeed saying my '87 Glock 17 with factory standard capacity, 17 round magazines is an assault weapon, while a new Glock 17 purchased by a civilian between 1994 and 2004 with 10 round magazines is not an assault weapon? But what if one purchased a Glock 17 during the ban, and then purchased pre-ban standard capacity magazines along with it. Would that then constitute an assault weapon? How do you think that played into your quoted statistics of assault weapon violence? Does the word skew mean anything to you?

[DSG]

Also assault pistols is laughable, Glock 19 (one of the most popular Glocks) has a 15 round capacity normally and takes a half a second to reload, how is a 10 round magazine going to stop someone that is going already commit a crime and murder someone?

It wont and the anti gun nuts know it. Again these bad guys often referred to as "criminals" and not going to follow any law. They are called criminals for a reason..IE the don't care about the law. All this legislation isn't meant to stop crime at all. Its meant to control the masses. This is just a farce to get the anti gun bills past. All this is, is baby steps to getting rid of the second amendment.

[Kryptix]

OK!!!!!!!!!! Here is where I give up defending this bill. The crime rate probably went down because of the booming economy and the extra police. But the thread states Hillary's blatant lies where I have yet to see proof of. She may have said assault weapons are back on the street. But yah, assault weapons as defined in the bill. No lies there. This is a not a big deal. I've seen worse :lol:

[Billy]

All this is, is baby steps to getting rid of the second amendment.

For those, like Topless T/A, who feel they aren't being mislead by the anti-firearm movement....here is a direct quote from the Violence Policy Center, one of the biggest backers behind anti-gun legislation.

Below, they clearly spell out their intent to use deceptive techniques to sway the public opinion in their favor. Nice...

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

[BAMF]

It wont and the anti gun nuts know it. Again these bad guys often referred to as "criminals" and not going to follow any law. They are called criminals for a reason..IE the don't care about the law. All this legislation isn't meant to stop crime at all. Its meant to control the masses. This is just a farce to get the anti gun bills past. All this is, is baby steps to getting rid of the second amendment.

Refer to my sig. Who are YOU going to help get into the white house?

[DSG]

OK!!!!!!!!!! Here is where I give up defending this bill. The crime rate probably went down because of the booming economy and the extra police. But the thread states Hillary's blatant lies where I have yet to see proof of. She may have said assault weapons are back on the street. But yah, assault weapons as defined in the bill. No lies there. This is a not a big deal. I've seen worse :lol:


Where the lie is that assault weapons never left the street. Those dangerous assault weapons have the exact same killing ability as the "non" assault weapons. The assault weapons ban itself is/was a joke.

Clinton and all the other anti gun politicians wont address the real problem. And that's being soft on crime. PERIOD...

[jabtay]

But the thread states Hillary's blatant lies where I have yet to see proof of.
She stated she would not campaign in Florida until after the primaries, in respect to the DNCs command. She supported the rule that the delegates would not be counted...until she won. So when she got 50% she started insisting that the delegates be seated. So she lied.

we can get into all of her shady business deals, and illegal campaign contributions.

[Topless T/A]

For those, like Topless T/A, who feel they aren't being mislead by the anti-firearm movement....here is a direct quote from the Violence Policy Center, one of the biggest backers behind anti-gun legislation.

Below, they clearly spell out their intent to use deceptive techniques to sway the public opinion in their favor. Nice...

I don't even remember what thread it was in now, but somewhere I said that I don't see any positive impact that things like assault weapons can have on society....facts or no facts (as there is enough to support both sides). Therefore, I support any ban against them and things like them....period, end of story, I officially don't care about this topic anymore.

[DSG]

Refer to my sig. Who are YOU going to help get into the white house?

My man was Fred Thompson, but since he is out of the race I will support whomever the Republican nominee is. Looks like McCain is going to get the nod.

[Billy]

I don't even remember what thread it was in now, but somewhere I said that I don't see any positive impact that things like assault weapons can have on society....facts or no facts (as there is enough to support both sides). Therefore, I support any ban against them and things like them....period, end of story, I officially don't care about this topic anymore.

:nono: That's always great to hear someone say they don't care about a topic, state that they don't care about the facts one way or another yet still make a pledge to support one side of the issue, no matter what it says.

[Iroc Joe]

I don't even remember what thread it was in now, but somewhere I said that I don't see any positive impact that things like assault weapons can have on society....facts or no facts (as there is enough to support both sides). Therefore, I support any ban against them and things like them....period, end of story, I officially don't care about this topic anymore.

Well, Kryptix has always been a loon but I really expect better from you. That one is really disappointing. Usually you have your head on your shoulders. But, let's remove the topic of firearms and look at the basis of your argument. "I don't see any positive impact [insert topic] so let's ban them." Not what I would expect from someone who I usually hold in high regard in political discussions.

Let's look at it this way, if one were to say "I don't believe in global warming, so let's increase SUV production." You would probably think that person was ignorant, and unwilling to view the impacts of their decision on society as a whole...

[Kryptix]

She stated she would not campaign in Florida until after the primaries, in respect to the DNCs command. She supported the rule that the delegates would not be counted...until she won. So when she got 50% she started insisting that the delegates be seated. So she lied.

we can get into all of her shady business deals, and illegal campaign contributions.

So what. So did Obama.

[BAMF]

I fail to see how people that say things like, "I can see no positive impact, so lets ban x" or "Why do you NEED x, so lets ban it!" can't scare themselves with their utilitarian and fascist views.

[DSG]

So what. So did Obama.



So you are admiting they are both liars...Bwahahahahaha

[Kryptix]

So you are admiting they are both liars...Bwahahahahaha

It doesn't mean anything. People change their mind all the time especially when it gets this drastic. I saw Obama campaigning all week during the Florida primary. Hillary didn't get there till the day of the primary and she wasn't running any ads. I don't care though. These are non issues and mean nothing to me. I can find the same type of things for any candidate regardless of party affiliation.

[DSG]

Convenient. I will make sure to hold you to the same high moral standard when the shoe is on the proverbial, other foot.

[jabtay]

It doesn't mean anything. People change their mind all the time especially when it gets this drastic.
haha flip flop ftw!

[Kryptix]

haha flip flop ftw!

They all flip-flop. NEWS TO THE UNINFORMED FTW!!!!!!

[jabtay]

They all flip-flop. NEWS TO THE UNINFORMED FTW!!!!!!

Kerry said Florida is a state where Obama, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, signed pledges not to campaign after the Democratic National Committee stripped it of delegates for moving its primary date up without national party approval.
Yet Clinton campaign allies, notably the AFSCME labor union has been "spending tons of money" there, Kerry said, to create a symbolic Clinton victory before Feb. 5 elections in 22 states. Moreover, Hillary Clinton will be in Florida tonight, to thank supporters after today's votes are tallied.

http://www.alternet.org/democracy/75353/
Awwwe whats wrong...proof that she lied, yet you still make excuses...

[Topless T/A]

:nono: That's always great to hear someone say they don't care about a topic, state that they don't care about the facts one way or another yet still make a pledge to support one side of the issue, no matter what it says.


you see this is why it's almost pointless to have this discussion with you guys...I've said countless times (even in that very post) that the facts are there to support both sides...My personal opinions and political beliefs, in combination with those facts, are what shape my argument from there.

[Kryptix]

http://www.alternet.org/democracy/75353/
Awwwe whats wrong...proof that she lied, yet you still make excuses...

Ahhh. SO now you're using Kerry, the ultimate flip-flopper, for a source.:lol: :roll: I see how it is. I already explained this. It doesn't matter. If flip-flopping or "lying" about issues like these were important you wouldn't be Republican. Let's see if the American public cares about issues like these or if they care more about the country.

[jabtay]

Ahhh. SO now you're using Kerry, the ultimate flip-flopper, for a source.:lol: :roll: I see how it is. I already explained this. It doesn't matter. If flip-flopping or "lying" about issues like these were important you wouldn't be Republican. Let's see if the American public cares about issues like these or if they care more about the country.
how can you talk about caring for the country when talking about clinton? Oh but wait, she is God to you...nevermind then

[Kryptix]

how can you talk about caring for the country when talking about clinton? Oh but wait, she is God to you...nevermind then

FYI In case you haven't noticed I supported a couple candidates on the Rep side. Now I do not.

[jabtay]

really, which ones? I really hadnt noticed.

[Kryptix]

Ron Paul was the first candidate and when I saw that he couldn't sum up the support I went with Romney. I chose those candidates because I thought they were the best the Republicans had to offer.

[jabtay]

I knew that RP was going to be mentioned. I had no clue you liked Romney.

[HullBreach]

Ron Paul was the first candidate and when I saw that he couldn't sum up the support I went with Romney. I chose those candidates because I thought they were the best the Republicans had to offer.

Just out of curiousity, because you've proven to be an interesting person to have discussious with on these boards, what turned you away from Thompson when he was still in?

[Kryptix]

Just out of curiousity, because you've proven to be an interesting person to have discussious with on these boards, what turned you away from Thompson when he was still in?

I never knew too much about Thompson. All I knew was that he was an actor for a show I never watched. He always cracked jokes. He seemed sickly. He jumped in the race too late and it seemed he didn't try hard enough. I remember him saying that he didn't join the race to beef up his resume but the way he played his campaign it seems that is exactly what he did. This post is the most thought I have put in Thompson. It seems like he was just an experiment.

[HullBreach]

I never knew too much about Thompson. All I knew was that he was an actor for a show I never watched. He always cracked jokes. He seemed sickly. He jumped in the race too late and it seemed he didn't try hard enough. I remember him saying that he didn't join the race to beef up his resume but the way he played his campaign it seems that is exactly what he did. This post is the most thought I have put in Thompson. It seems like he was just an experiment.

Ok, thats kind of what I figured. Im more curious from a post-mortem aspect than anything else. I really do think that taken purely in terms of positions and policy he was the strongest, but as far as campaigning goes, sadly, he was well towards the back of the pack.

[buck19]

Ron Paul was the first candidate and when I saw that he couldn't sum up the support I went with Romney.

Lack of support? do you realize that every network goes out of their way to keep him from debating or even answering a question that's directly given to him. They don't even belittle him. They just don't talk about him at all because he's right and will bring and end to corporate/gov't corruption if he doesn't get assassinated first like Kennedy. The other day. CNN blatantly kept him from answering his own questions. Just re-watch the CNN republican debate again. He was repeatedly cut off within 5 seconds of starting his answer and giving the question to someone else...


Oh and Clinton is a fraud. Just look into the Rose Law Firm debacle where money ended up missing along with some people, gone. And everything turned into her favor.

And about this past week with Florida and some other states with refused vote counts. Just take a look at this.
http://web.mac.com/ncft/Site/HOME_.html

[jabtay]

Lack of support?
I agree, how can someone that pulls that kind of contribution money, get the shaft like he has. I mean damn if everyone that actually donated money would vote for him, he could possibly be in 3rd place.

[Topless T/A]

when are you RP supporters going to admit that the reason why he didn't get any media attention is because of his whacked-out, extreme right-wing policies? He is the joke of the entire election.

[BAMF]

Lack of support? do you realize that every network goes out of their way to keep him from debating or even answering a question that's directly given to him. They don't even belittle him. They just don't talk about him at all because he's right and will bring and end to corporate/gov't corruption if he doesn't get assassinated first like Kennedy. The other day. CNN blatantly kept him from answering his own questions. Just re-watch the CNN republican debate again. He was repeatedly cut off within 5 seconds of starting his answer and giving the question to someone else...

The guy was a squirly old man with wacked out policies that appealed to a very small select group of people. The same type of people who are likely to join a cult and actually drink the punch in many cases, I'm willing to bet. Out of all the Ron Paul crazies on this board that I had to hear ranting and raving about him, I can thinking of maybe 2 that have half a head on their shoulders. The rest are just laughable. And they have ALL been given tinfoil hats. Do you see a trend here?

[buck19]

The guy was a squirly old man with wacked out policies that appealed to a very small select group of people. The same type of people who are likely to join a cult and actually drink the punch in many cases, I'm willing to bet. Out of all the Ron Paul crazies on this board that I had to hear ranting and raving about him, I can thinking of maybe 2 that have half a head on their shoulders. The rest are just laughable. And they have ALL been given tinfoil hats. Do you see a trend here?

You're weird. You have proved nothing besides being able to call people names.

[BAMF]

You're weird. You have proved nothing besides being able to call people names.

I don't have to prove shit, because that nutjob isn't getting elected. So go "Ron Paul '08" until you're blue in the face. IT ain't gonna make one bit of difference.

[Iroc Joe]

I don't have to prove shit, because that nutjob isn't getting elected. So go "Ron Paul '08" until you're blue in the face. IT ain't gonna make one bit of difference.

Lest we forget who is the registered Democrat here? Hope you liked your time with firearms, son. ;)

[25psi]

when are you RP supporters going to admit that the reason why he didn't get any media attention is because of his whacked-out, extreme right-wing policies? He is the joke of the entire election.

Just because someone wants a smaller government doesn't mean extreme right wing.

[buck19]

Just because someone wants a smaller government doesn't mean extreme right wing.

Seriously. We don't need gov't organizations watching over gov't orgs, watching over gov't orgs...

[BAMF]

Lest we forget who is the registered Democrat here? Hope you liked your time with firearms, son. ;)

I'm voting Republican in this election. MCCain ain't taking my firearms away. If anything, McCain has our backs and will right to restore some of our freedoms.

And for assumming I'm a rank-n-file Democrat, Ima pistol whip you, nigga.