Why, oh why, do they CONTINUE to LIE--Murphy, Feinstein, Time Magazine

[DaleA]

Why, Oh WHY do they CONTINUE to LIE?

Chris Murphy Senator Connecticut.
Diane Feinstein Senator California.
Time Magazine

https://time.com/5606786/senate-repu...afety-reforms/

Guns like the AR-15 aren’t used for hunting and they’re not viable for home protection. They have only one purpose, and that’s to fire as many rounds as possible, as quickly as possible.

Outlawing these weapons, an action supported by 60 percent of Americans, will bring down the number of mass shootings and reduce the number of casualties, just as it did when the ban first passed in 1994.

The AR-15 can be, and IS used A LOT for hunting. (Hogs, coyotes, fox and other varmints.)

The AR-15 has been FAMOUSLY and EFFECTIVELY used for self-defense.

Senators Murphy and Feinstein are NOT “mistaken” or “misinformed” they are lying.
Time Magazine is printing and spreading these lies.

I am very, very tired of this stuff continuing to show up in the main stream media.

What can I do about it? Not much except I’m posting this information here.

[44 AMP]

Why do they continue to lie???

The answer is deceptively simple.

They lie, because the wish to deceive us.

If you expect honesty from a politician, what will you expect next, charity from a banker???

I have a tiny amount of respect for TIME magazine, because ONCE, in the early 80s they actually printed an editorial stating that while normally a news magazine is expected to be fair and unbiased, the editors of Time felt the gun issue was too important for them "not to choose sides".

I respect that that said that, in public, ONCE. They've never said it again, that I am aware of, and I have NO respect for their "reporting" (then, or since).

[UncleEd]

Well I suppose Murphy and Feinstein could reply that for decades and
decades dating back to the 1800s that hogs, coyotes and other
critters have been successfully hunted with other guns that don't
have the capacity or design for such rapid fire.

And they could add that for decades and decades other guns long
before the AR 15s successfully were used to defend homes and persons.

They could next point out all the dozens and dozens of little children,
teens and adults that have been killed in schools, theaters and concerts
by AR 15s in just the last decade or so.

How do you answer them then?

[Ricekila]

Truthiness - say it enough times -- morons believe its truth --

[TruthTellers]

They lie because there will always be a sizeable number of people within the populace who are too stupid to understand the Truth.

[JohnKSa]

Well I suppose Murphy and Feinstein ... decade or so.

How do you answer them then?

WHY does it make sense to answer claims that they didn't make?

If they wanted to debate the issue rationally, one approach would be to use the kinds of arguments you have made and then it would makes sense to address those arguments.

But that's not what they did. They made a public claim that is demonstrably, even ludicrously false.

When someone makes a false claim, or tells an outright lie, there's no obligation to work their side of the debate to help them make their arguments better.

All you have to do is point out that they are lying/making false claims.

That said, if they had made the claims you listed in your post, they would be quite easy to answer.

...for decades and decades dating back to the 1800s that hogs, coyotes and other critters have been successfully hunted with other guns that don't have the capacity or design for such rapid fire.

1. For hundreds of years, maybe thousands, people successfully hunted animals with rocks and wooden spears. Obviously guns, bows, knives and metal in general are unnecessary for hunting. If we banned all metal weapons, just think how few little children would be killed.

2. More importantly, our constitution doesn't guarantee the right to keep and bear arms for hunting. Which means that arguments against the right to keep and bear arms that relate to hunting are red herrings.

And they could add that for decades and decades other guns long before the AR 15s successfully were used to defend homes and persons.

Good point. For many decades, we were allowed to own state of the art military weapons for home and self-defense. Now we are mostly limited to a class of weapons that has reduced capability compared to the state of the art in military weapons. Was that the point that you were trying to make? That our capabilities, relative to what is available, are reduced compared to what our capabilities were in times past?

They could next point out all the dozens and dozens of little children, teens and adults that have been killed in schools, theaters and concerts by AR 15s in just the last decade or so.

Yes, it is true that some people will use their freedoms to do evil things. This is true even in prisons were guns are not allowed and freedom is so restricted that it would be abhorrent if the same restrictions were placed on typical citizens.

The quest to prevent people from doing evil by restricting their freedoms is one that can never be successful. Even the severest restrictions don't prevent people from killing each other in prison.

A rational view of a free society must accept the inescapable reality that it's impossible to prevent violence. From there every society has to decide what balance they want to strike. Our constitution makes some of the basic decisions simple.

[JERRYS.]

Because there are people with soft heads, blind eyes, low I.Q.s and others are dependent upon the government for their next meal; and the lies have worked for decades, so....

[TomNJVA]

They could next point out all the dozens and dozens of little children,
teens and adults that have been killed in schools, theaters and concerts
by AR 15s in just the last decade or so.

Killed by AR-15s? You mean the AR-15s walked into the schools, pointed themselves at the children, and pulled their own triggers? Pretty clever these new fangled rifles!

[mehavey]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

"...constitution doesn't guarantee the right to keep and bear arms ....for hunting . . . .

Correct. It guaranteed them for the security of a free State -- and by extension -- a free People
in whose hands that Security rested...all the way down to the free individual.

That freedom does come at not inconsiderable cost.... at times in the lives of innocents.
But the alternative is literally a Police State (with no duty to protect the individual I might add).
...and being Subjects rather than citizens.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When the less-than-educated masses rush madly to accept the promise of a little
safety at merely a 'little' cost in their freedom, I am always reminded of Watership Down....

They meet a rabbit named Cowslip, who invites them to join his warren.
At first, Hazel's group are largely relieved to finally be able to sleep and
feed well – except for Fiver, who senses only death there. Bigwig,
Blackberry and Fiver's friend Pipkin suspect something suspicious, but they
don't think too much of it. When Bigwig is nearly killed in a snare, Fiver,
in a crazed lecture, makes the group realize that the new warren is managed
by a farmer who protects and feeds the rabbits, but also harvests a number
of them for their meat and skins. The residents of the new warren are
simply using Hazel and the others to increase their own odds of survival.


.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by UncleEd

They could next point out all the dozens and dozens of little children,
teens and adults that have been killed in schools, theaters and concerts
by AR 15s in just the last decade or so.

Dozens of little children? My database goes back to 1784. In all, I show 267 people (of all ages) killed by "assault weapon" type firearms. 58 of those were the Harvest Festival in Las Vegas, which obviously didn't include any children. 26 were at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. 49 were at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Sandy Hook was 27. Parkland was 17.

That's 177 people accounted for by five incidents. The other 90 are spread out over 138 incidents and 235 years, the vast majority of which didn't include "assault weapon" type firearms, and some of which didn't include any firearms at all.

The loss of any innocent life is tragic and I don't mean to downplay that. But I just don't see a problem here that's crying out for a draconian "solution." I have the total number killed by firearms as 748. 267 of that number is 36 percent. What's the logic in singling out for a ban the type of weapon that accounted for only approximately one-third of the deaths by firearms in mass and school shooting incidents?

[Mike38]

As long as "Joe Sixpack" has a case of beer in the fridge, a bag of Doritos in the pantry, two nickels to rub together, and the game of the week on the boob tube, he rolls with the flow, lying politicians and all. Joe's middle name is Apathy. He thinks he's living large. Take away any of the four important thinks to Joe listed above, and he will become concerned. Take away most anything else, Joe doesn't care.

[rickyrick]

Why, Oh WHY do they CONTINUE to LIE?

Because they can’t turn us socialists till more of the guns are gone.

And I’m sure more than 60% of Americans were for others not having equal rights in the past. Majority rule should not be used as a measure when determining civil rights.

[Hal]

2. More importantly, our constitution doesn't guarantee the right to keep and bear arms for hunting. Which means that arguments against the right to keep and bear arms that relate to hunting are red herrings.

That line comes up all the time here - so - I decided to see if it was entirely correct.
Turns out it's not.

Stephen Halbrook wrote a very excellent book on the topic.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/v...context=wmborj

It's well researched and documented & contains references to quite a bit of information well worth the reading.

While "hunting" per say isn't spelled out in the Bill of Rights, it's clearly something the Founding Fathers had in mind when they penned it.

I believe however - this subject deserves it's own thread....so..feel free to start one if there's any discussion on it.
The FF penned "The pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence - as a basic human right. The phrase has been twisted about over the years to mean something other than the original intent. Back in the day - it meant "Acquire private property" and thus enjoy the benefits of such. Along with the property - came all the usage of timber & game it contained. It's intent is to free the colonies from the old "Forest Laws" - which the British Parliament still considered intact in the colonies.

[P5 Guy]

Liars are convinced they have the true truth and a need to convince all around them to believe as they do or evil will prevail.
In this instance the true truth, according to them, is that the semi automatic rifle is evil incarnated and must be removed from the hands and homes of Americans. Watch what other true truths that will be enforced once there is little or no means to resist.

Said another way one lie leads to many more and bigger lies.

A return to Mediaeval Feudalism seems to be the goal of these and other similar liars.

[Tom Servo]

They lie, because the wish to deceive us.

They also do so because they can get away with it. The editors at Time know the claims are false, or at least exaggerated. But in the current media climate, claims make the front page and rebuttals are never heard.

We’ve seen 150 shootings in the first 150 days of 2019.

This is cute. Not 150 mass shootings. Just 150 shootings of some sort. Let's just lump those statements together to make the public afraid.

One thing is clear: the laws on the books are insufficient and an ineffective deterrent

That's funny, because when they were pushing the Brady Act and Assault Weapons Ban, we were told they'd "end gun violence." Are they now admitting their proposals were failures? If so, I'll be glad to discuss repealing those before moving on.

Australia quickly banned all semiautomatic rifles and enacted a licensing system.

And it didn't work. Compliance with the law was (and is) less than 20%, with most of the surrendered guns being ineffective antiques, not "military rifles." Peer-reviewed studies have shown no significant effect on crime.

They’re wrong: data has shown that tighter gun laws save lives.

Citation, please.

Ninety-seven percent of Americans support background checks – including a majority of gun owners.

I thought it was 90%. Or 95%. They keep changing it. In any case, when the question is so vague as "would you support laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals," of course they're going to get that result. Now try asking, "would you support laws that will eventually lead to registration schemes, which will then be used to harass gun owners," and watch that support plummet.

But right now, anyone can go to a gun show or online and buy a gun with no background check at all.

I'd like to know where online I can buy guns without a background check.

Another loophole that should be closed allows gun sales to proceed by default if a background check takes longer than three days

This one is cute. That 3-day period exists so the FBI can't just put a transfer on hold forever. If they can't do a simple check in 72 hours, somebody else needs to be doing the checks.

We know that these laws would make a difference.

No, we really don't. The most complementary study she could find on the efficacy of the Assault Weapons Ban (and the one she attached to her 2013 proposal) found, at best, "tenuous" evidence of any effect on violent crime.

Our homicide rate was dropping prior to the ban, and it continued after the ban expired in 2004.

Outlawing these weapons, an action supported by 60 percent of Americans

Again, citation, please.

We have to break this cycle of gun deaths.

A few more background checks or selective bans on certain products isn't going to do that.

[Nathan]

Why do they lie? This is easy.

Most crime involving guns involving guns involves 22lr, 380, and 9mm...in handguns. Why are they going after rifles? Rifles are off the charts low impact... School shootings, nah; mass shootings, nah;

Just remember, it is never about banning guns, it is never about reducing crime, it is never about the children......it is always about reducing risk...

Will any ban completely ban guns from all people in a country? No, there will always be an exception for licenses given out by the government or able to be purchased or based on “classification”. Will this stop criminal access to guns....no. It will only stop hard working Americans from buying rifles. Hmm, why would you want to do that? Maybe we should look at the original intent of the 2A for that.

[buck460XVR]

Originally Posted by DaleA

.

Senators Murphy and Feinstein are NOT “mistaken” or “misinformed” they are lying.

I am very, very tired of this stuff continuing to show up in the main stream media.

In reality, they are just expressing their subjective opinions. Just like we do here. Kinda what makes the world so interesting. Are pro-gun FUDDS lying when they claim no one needs a mag capacity of more than 10 rounds? Nope, just expressing their opinion. Kinda what America is all about. Tired about hearing opinions that differ from yours? You probably need to quit listening.

Part of the problem I see here on these types of gun forums and elsewhere is the refusal by many folks to accept the fact that others have different opinions. Why we have so many threads based on caliber closed by mods. Or which gun for bear. Is that poster that thinks a .45ACP is sufficient for bear protection lying?

This problem to refuse to identify the difference between lies/the falsification of facts and an opinion is what can make us liars too. While I don't agree with the quoted statement in your OP, I understand where those folks get their opinion. From their emotions and life experiences. This is where we need to base our rebuttal from, not from the claim they are intentionally lying. We need to quit asking folks to respect our opinions while calling theirs.... nuttin' but lies! Facts supporting both sides of the argument are easily found. What we need to do is convince folks that one set supersedes the other. For the most part, we ain't never gonna convince that 20% of hard core antis in this country, they are wrong. Just like they are never gonna convince the 20% of hard core pro-guns folks they are wrong. We just need to not distance, offend or put off, the 60% of folks that are neutral to guns in our country, and are the ones that really control our present access to firearms. We do this by sound discussion and arguments......not by name calling and by lowering ourselves to the level of our opponents.

[ammo.crafter]

We are prevented from advertising in national newspapers, etc., that would present our factual truth.

[Mike38]

Why are they going after rifles?

They are going after rifles because you can't protect yourself from tyranny with a 9mm handgun. With an AR15, at least you have a chance. An M9, not a chance in the world.

[44 AMP]

Once said by Reagan, and I'm sure many others at different times and places..

"the problem with our opponents is not what they don't know, its that so much of what they do know, is wrong!"

I will heartily agree that anytime anyone else decides, for me, without even asking me, what I NEED, it is an opinion. Their opinion, and usually, wrong!

I'd be interested in seeing "facts" that define and identify what I "need". And what you need. And what several million other people "need".

There are two major fallacies when someone starts talking about "need" and banning or restricting something. The first is the obvious, opinion about what a person needs, and the second is the virtually automatic assumption that since "no one needs" it, it is ok (morally and legally) to ban it.

Here's an opinion, when one of them starts talking about needs and guns, ask them about needs and how much money they make. For the sake of a simple standard, I'm going to pick the legal minimum wage laws. Govt sets a standard, the minimum wage. This is what they say employers need to pay employees on order to live. SO, therefore, no one needs more money than that.

If its ok for them to ban an AR or magazine or whatever, because "no one needs it for …." then its ok for me to ban their money above minimum wage level, because no one needs it. (according to the US governments)

Wouldn't we all be better off?? Won't the CHILDREN be saved if the govt simply confiscated everyone's money above the minimum wage level?

Think of the lives we could save if people simply didn't have the money to buy a cell phone to text while driving? Or, for that matter, buy a car?

How about banning those high capacity assault vehicles, capable of easily and hugely exceeding the legal speed limit??
Better repeal the law of gravity, while you're at it, that way we could prevent all those deaths and injuries from falls....

If one is repeatedly shown facts that prove an opinion is false or at least incorrect, at what point does keeping that proven false opinion move from being a strongly held, though inaccurate opinion, to being a deliberate lie???

I have my own opinion on that. I'm sure their opinion on that is different than mine, too.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The AR-15 can be, and IS used A LOT for hunting. (Hogs, coyotes, fox and other varmints.)

I would point out that hunting is irrelevant to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It is a common ploy to say you support the 2nd Amendment as you support sportspeople and you (politician) have gone hunting (which gives you the laughable photo ops of Kerry, Hillary and Romney making up stories of animal killing prowess). Varmints can be controlled without the higher capacity mags which make rampages so easy (recall all the Zumbo and guy from Guns and Ammo denouncing assault rifles as they were hunters).

If you go into the hunting, competition argument - you are falling into a trap. The 2nd Amend. is not about entertainment (Thanks for you take on that, extremely stable genius). In Australia and the UK, the sports argument failed to stop the gun laws.

About the not turning in off the guns which folks chortle about. Well, that's nice except for if there is a ban:

1. You cannot use them for hunting
2. You cannot use them for competition
3. If you use them for self-defense - you may beat the shooting charge but be charged with having the guns. There are cases like that already.
4. There is the risk of discovery when you Ex turns you in. Your kid babbles at school. The firemen find it.
5. Sheriff Andy of Crapberry may not want to execute the law but the state troopers in most states will.

What are you going to do with the hidden gun? Dig it up to fight the Green New Deal or Medicare for all?

All politicians lie - so why the outrage on this one, like any party as moral standing on truthfulness?

I can't list lies without going into politics but being naive on lying is a touch naive. Try to combat them with the truth. All institutions lie.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Once said by Reagan, and I'm sure many others at different times and places..

"the problem with our opponents is not what they don't know, its that so much of what they do know, is wrong!"

I submit that I don't think in the case of Diana Feinstein or Chris Murphy that it's a case of "so much of what they know is wrong." I think they know very well what the facts are, but they have each hitched their wagon to gun control and they'll tell any lies they need to in order to advance their agenda. I'm absolutely certain that they are lying, not making an honest (if anything about a career politician could ever be "honest") mistake.

[JohnKSa]

Stephen Halbrook wrote a very excellent book on the topic.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/v...context=wmborj

It's well researched and documented & contains references to quite a bit of information well worth the reading.

While "hunting" per say isn't spelled out in the Bill of Rights, it's clearly something the Founding Fathers had in mind when they penned it.

It's almost certain that the Founding Fathers had hunting in mind when they penned the Bill of Rights, I imagine it would be impossible to write about guns in those times without considering hunting.

But the amendment clearly is not about recreational use of firearms.

More to the point, the constitution is what SCOTUS says it is, and, to my knowledge, their rulings on the topic mention nothing about hunting or recreational use.

Furthermore, I think that a more careful read of Halbrook's writings will reveal that while he does believe that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to hunt, he's far less specific about the 2nd amendment itself being penned with that in mind. In fact, his exact quote is: "As a Constitutional Right, the Right to Hunt Must Be Broadly Construed" in other words, trying to point to one specific passage in the constitution and saying "here are the words that say we can hunt" is not really possible.

His argument relies heavily on state constitutions, letters and quotes from people other than the founding fathers, and, it might be noted, requires well over 200 pages--the phrase "second amendment" actually only appears 6 times in the document, and two of those are in the footnotes. His primary argument is more along the lines that the right to hunt was deemed universal in the colonies--as opposed to claiming that the 2nd amendment guaranteed it.

Moreover, as he states clearly in the introduction, he intended his article to: "focus on Virginia’s right to hunt guarantee." and doesn't even really claim that he's focusing on the U.S. Constitution, let alone unpacking a right to hunt from the 2nd amendment.

So while his work does suggest that there is an implied right to hunt "broadly construed" in the U.S. Constitution (an assertion with which I tend to agree) I don't believe it in any way contradicts the assertion that the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.

That said, while I've skimmed through it, I will not claim to have carefully read all 230+ pages. If you have and can point me to a passage where Halbrook claims that the 2nd amendment was specifically intended to protect hunting, please do.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Stressing hunting - advances the cause of assault rifle, higher capacity bans.

Joe Scarborough (blah!!) said something like: I don't need a clip of 30 cop killer bullets to take my son hunting.

Except for possibly spraying at a large group of TX hogs, you can hunting most things with a Ruger No. 1 single shot.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It's a close as we are getting waves of pure political rants.