|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 17, 2014, 11:03 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,171
|
New York Times: More fair assessment on "assault weapons"?
This is most unusual, and I find it intriguing, while saying "Okay, so what's their angle, how are they trying to spin this"
As I read through it, I was a bit surprised to see that the article appears to be encouraging other methods (such as targeting high risk individuals in high risk areas, such as impoverished sections of urban areas.) and helping them get off the streets an becoming stable, working citizens. What do you all think? The inner cynic in me thinks they're using this to try and regain traction on a handgun ban. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/su...s&emc=rss&_r=4 |
September 17, 2014, 11:48 PM | #2 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Around 1989, Josh Sugarmann accepted as much. The gun control folks needed something to rally around, so he proposed the idea of "assault weapons." He admitted that it was a confusing and nebulous category. He was also honest, if not a bit crass, when he suggested that it would be easier to get a ban on "assault weapons" because it was easier to confuse them with machine guns in the public eye. Yeah. So, well...yeah. Remember that the same folks pushing for common-sense gun laws today are the folks who knowingly supported that agenda twenty years ago. What this article (and there was a similar one in WaPo last week) does is feign defeat and compromise. How so? Feinstein went way off the reservation with last year's AWB II. Not even her allies in the Senate warmed to it. The competing bill was Manchin-Toomey, which was supposed to be the moderate proposal. Trust me, if the political climate was right, they'd push for AWB II tomorrow. At the moment it isn't, so they claim they're realigning themselves around a more moderate axis. Do not trust them.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
September 18, 2014, 12:25 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,171
|
Oh I don't think for a second that the anti's are trying to be "fair". I've read and heard it plenty from the veterans of the gun community as well as seeing it for myself.
The inner skeptic/cynic in me refuses to completely believe anything the anties try to pull. The anti's are not stupid, they're intelligent and well funded. They'll spin any story or event to try and get their agenda pushed through. This however, is something I was not aware of, and now that you point it out, it makes sense with what they're trying to do. Hopefully my donations to the NRA-ILA will keep the wolves at bay when the antis rear their heads, which they will, again sometime in the future. |
September 18, 2014, 01:31 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: East Bernard, TX
Posts: 523
|
If I may, I'd like to quote two paragraphs from the piece. If this is beyond "fair use" please delete:
Quote:
The idea that "guns don't kill people. people kill people" is old hat to us, new to them. And that they are finally putting it in print and accepting that banning guns will not decrease violence ought to please us. She also mentions, in passing, that "assault weapons" is a political (not technical) term that addresses appearance and not function. In short - whatever the real motivation behind the article, it reads like a relatively objective analysis of a seemingly intractable problem. |
|
September 18, 2014, 03:55 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 4,811
|
Am I the only one thinking this is just a re-targeting ploy?
By that I mean dropping the failed & politically toxic (especially during election sunup time) "Assault weapons" sacred cow & switching back to a more acceptable & with better chance of success "handguns" point of aim for the pre elective speech-making? I for one don't see them folding the tents & backing off, but I do see a change of tactic.
__________________
Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”? Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.” |
September 19, 2014, 02:22 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 393
|
May be for re-targeting, but doesn't the general public NOT support a ban on handguns?
And honestly, the only reason people support a ban on "assault weapons" is because they haven't the slightest clue what they actually are. But I guess around these parts, I'm mostly preaching to the choir. Oh man, the arguments I've had with people over AWB's... They always give the same idiotic responses, though. Rant over.. |
September 19, 2014, 06:49 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,526
|
Here is a link to some more articles by Beckett on guns.
|
September 19, 2014, 07:32 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 4,556
|
"Assault rifles" don't really exist...
"Weapons of war".... And others. Terms derived by the liberal MSM to gin up fear and support by the uninformed and willfully ignorant masses. I still want to puke every time I hear the term "automatic weapon" used to describe a semi-automatic rifle. Thing about "journalism" today- the "journalists" LIE...and they get away with it. The "news" outlets publish them as fact, and the uninformed believe it. There are no longer standards for truthfulness. There is no longer "news"- it's all editorials, usually combined with half-truths or lies to support the writer's personal views. This article, like others she's written, is a thinly veiled attempt to push for handgun "control".
__________________
Remington 700/Savage Rebarreling /Action Blueprinting 07 FFL /Mosin-Nagant Custom Shop/Bent Bolts Genuine Cerakote Applicator www.biggorillagunworks.com |
September 19, 2014, 08:39 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
Look for proposals to lower the requirements and due process for adjudication of mental illnesses down to something along the lines of training police to 'recognize' illnesses or 'my neighbor is nuts' levels of Orwellian precrime.
|
September 19, 2014, 09:50 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,952
|
Quote:
This is a ploy to go after the Gun Owner, not the Gun. These studies will be used as ammunition to lobby for "Expanded" background checks and other criteria required to purchase or Own any type of Firearm. If they cannot Ban the Firearm, ban the person. IMO that is where this is headed. |
|
September 19, 2014, 10:24 AM | #11 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
This article is just a rehash of a study by the Center for American Progress (a lefty think tank) that was authored by a former MAIG Coordinator: http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-c...ons-report.pdf
I am guessing Bloomberg's backing and the recent 20th anniversary of the 1994 ban is why you are seeing this article and others with the same theme suddenly springing up like mushrooms in various "news" outlets. The study basically realized that pushing gun bans at the same time you are pushing background checks was counterproductive to getting background checks passed; because it is hard to sell the "Nobody wants to take your guns away" lie concerning registration when you are trying to take their guns away at the same time. The study recommended making background checks a higher priority and shushing the "assault weapons" talk for the time being. Instead of banning the production of new assault weapons, the study recommended registration of all firearms transfers (not just sales mind you), and that semi-automatic firearms (not just long guns either) be placed into the NFA and require a CLEO signoff (they even went so far as to emphasize the CLEO sign off part). As a compromise/partial advance measure, they might consider only requiring a CHL to own a semi-auto firearm. Some important things to note about their alternate proposal: 1) This is a de-facto ban that is even worse than any previously proposed ban, since it effects not only newly manufactured firearms; but existing firearms already in private ownership. 2) We all know the CLEO sign-off is frequently used to deny gun ownership to people who are more than qualified to own NFA weapons simply at the whim of the CLEO. 3)Your Glock 17 can easily be construed as an "Assault Weapon." In fact, MAIG has already done so several times in the past in releasing studies on the subject. When you look at it in that light, their focus on "handguns and background checks" instead of "assault weapons" starts to make more sense. They are in no way backing off their goals in the least. In fact, they've been surprisingly open about what their goals are and how they plan to achieve them. This "Assault Weapons Myth" story seems like a positive because it looks like the anti-gun side is finally starting to acknowledge the reality that so-called "Assault Weapons" have next to zero impact on firearm death and injury rates; but in my opinion, the real goal here is to help lull gun owners into a false sense of security prior to the important midterm elections. We've got 40 Senators who voted for a draconian gun ban in 2013. 46 Senators voted to ban any "ammunition feeding device" of more than 10 rounds. 54 Senators voted for a "universal background checks" bill that included forcing CHL holders, who were already exempt from background checks, to be forced to make their private transfers through an FFL and fill out a Form 4473, even though no background check would be done. That is registration, pure and simple. Many of the Senators who made those anti-gun votes are in a tough re-election fight now and they are scared. They are hoping gun owners either have forgiven or forgotten these votes. And articles like these are meant to reassure gun owners that a certain unnamed party whose leadership is universally on the wrong side of those votes is finally starting to listen to reason. But if we don't get rid of those people in November, they are going to do exactly what they say they are going to do in the CAP Study above. Everybody here has seen the "Nobody wants to take your guns" gambit before... Quote:
|
|
September 19, 2014, 04:21 PM | #12 |
Member
Join Date: March 25, 2014
Posts: 98
|
Who knows what the angle is, maybe they are genuinely admitting they were wrong about assault rifles.
|
September 19, 2014, 04:50 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
|
All I see are Bloomberg and his friends are experimenting with different appeals that will lead to gun bans. The more they keep this as a top headline, the more they move public opinion to their side of the argument.
Quote:
Knock them out!
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading. |
|
September 19, 2014, 07:25 PM | #14 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
September 19, 2014, 08:53 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
Never turn your back on a gun-grabber.
They speak with honeyed words in soft cadences, to fool the unwary. |
September 20, 2014, 06:37 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,526
|
Quote:
I don't see the NYT article by Beckett as a push to make "assault weapons" NFA items. Beckett's article seems to be reporting the ineffectiveness of the original AWB and that a reinstatement won't lower crime. There are, no doubt, many gun control advocates that want a ban or want to place "assault weapons" in the NFA registry but the point of Beckett's article seems to be that other gun control advocates realize those actions wouldn't lower crime. |
|
September 20, 2014, 10:41 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 4,811
|
If you read between the lines & apply liberal logic the article says that the problem isn't "Assault Weapons" because they aren't used much in the commission of violence, as the majority of "gun Violence related events are involving handguns".
That was why I wondered if the emphasis is just being shifted from long guns to handguns as that topic has been sleeping for quite a while & is probably the next big push, along with back door ammo restrictions.
__________________
Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”? Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.” |
September 20, 2014, 04:57 PM | #18 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Beckett's "journalism" is basically just repeating some of the points from the CAP study I linked, which does directly advocate for making semi-autos an NFA item. Read some of Beckett's past work on the subject of guns. She is no friend to gun owners.
This is just another version of "Gun owners don't need to worry because we have totally learned our lesson on the futility of gun control - at least until after the election is over." |
|
|