Quick Anti Put-Down

They’ve been prattling, so let’s just run down a few posts.

First Joan Doubles down on stupid:

I don’t believe the public is confused. Semi automatic weapons are guns that shoot a lot of people in a very short time. The public understands that one. Though some hunting rifles are semi-automatic and are used to kill people as well, it is the assault type weapons that are doing the most damage in the shootings. Gun owners understand the difference. Most hunters do not use assault weapons for hunting. They may use semi automatics but they know assault type weapons with their features used to kill many, are not needed to shoot deer and other animals. Hunters don’ t need them. Most do not have them or don’t use them. It is only the gun rights extremists who try to claim they are no different and that people can use them for hunting. You don’t need them. You just want them. There is a difference. You can’t win that argument. It is a specious and unsupportable argument that you guys have been throwing around for much too long. We’re not buying any more. You might have fooled some with it but it’s not working. And if a gun is menacing looking, how do you think the public will react to it? Weapons of war are not guns that most people think are O.K. for civilians. That is for good reason Are we at war? Are you at war? Why do you need these kind of guns?

This is great! Hunters DO use GOOD semi-autos, but not BAD ones! Obviously things like bayonet lugs and flash suppressors are going to make a huge difference in the woods one way or the other. Also never has ANYBODY wanted a side-folding or collapsible stock when climbing into a tight tree stand or blind, or packing their rifle into the field on an ATV, or when they have to throw a jacket and poncho under their hunting orange when the weather turns bad. And yeah, nobody owns these guns…hence why Wal Mart feels the need to stock them…they also have a ton of Beta-Max players and HD DVD players they stock just because nobody wants those either! I wonder if I can buy the latest top-ten album on Mini-Disk at Wal Mart, because they just like to clutter their shelves for nothing!

Oh and speaking of “Good Semi-Autos” Jason Kilgore seems to not know the difference either:

I went to his Facebook page. There you can see just how much he loved his guns. He was very proud of his restored Russian Mosin Nagant rifle, and had many pictures of it. He also had a picture of his new AK-style assault rifle, a Czech vz. 58, which he bought for $799, no tax, no shipping, from czechpoint-usa.com. As he said, “Just picked it up today, can’t wait to try it out on the range. :)”. See the screencapture and picture with his comments. He knew all about the cost it would take to get a fully-automatic machine gun, and seemed to dream of it.

Of course, the gun lobby and their lap dogs want us to think that assault rifles have nothing at all do to with killing large numbers of people. If you listened to them, you’d think these “sport rifles” were only made to do target shooting and to shoot varmints.

BTW he was nice enough to link one of my posts…too bad nobody clicked it. I don’t blame them, as nobody reads his blog to click anyway. Joyce Money well spent! Still what’s interesting is this is the rifle he’s prattling about:

This rifle was imported into the United States as an Sa vz. 58 Sporter utilizing 10 round single stack magazines as US law requires semi automatic rifles to be imported with a magazine capacity of 10 rounds or less.

CzechPoint, Inc., in co-operation with local contractors, legally modifies the original vz. 58 Sporter into a rifle that accepts 30 round magazines by ensuring the rifle has no more than 10 imported parts. This means that all vz. 58 rifles capable of using 30 round magazines possess 5 USA made parts to fully comply with Title 18, U.S.C., Section 922(r).

In addition, US law prevents the importation of semi automatic rifles with bayonet lugs. Therefore, all D-Technic manufactured rifles are unable to accept the vz. 58 bayonet.

A ton of legal bullshit, but the crux is this is NOT an “Assault Weapon”, and depending on how that thumbhole stock is regulated, its only “Evil” feature is that it can accept “high Capacity” magazines…which are the standard magazines. They have ban-compliant guns that ship with specialty-made legally limited magazines…because that makes a difference, I guess. Still Joan and Jason know this is a “BAD Rifle”, I’d like to hear how and why.

Oh Jason is also patting himself on the back for throwing away money on junk guns.

One of the key events put on each year by the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation is the gun turn-in event, held once or twice each year. Anyone can turn in unwanted guns, no questions asked, and receive a gift card in exchange. Each working gun will be exchanged for a $75 gift certificate to Fred Meyer stores (up to three per person). Non-working guns and BB/Pellet guns receive a gift certificate to a fast food restaurant. No questions asked. Portland Police Department was there to take the weapons, check them for safety, and check their serial numbers. The guns are then destroyed.

This turn-in, there was a total of 235 weapons: 64 rifles, 44 shotguns, 114 handguns, 10 pellet guns, 1 crossbow, 2 non-working guns.

And who turns in the guns? Not criminals, most likely. What criminal would knowingly approach a police officer with a crime gun? No, these are widows who don’t know how to handle their husband’s weapon, or new parents who understand that guns in the home are a danger to children, or people who inherited weapons and understand that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to harm them than to be used to protect them. Occasionally it is someone with a gun that is defective to the point of being dangerous. In all these cases, the gun is clearly more of a liability than a blessing. Gun owners and non-gun owners alike should be glad this is happening.

Well first, if “no questions are asked” I don’t see why I criminal might not have the police pay them to destroy a gun that could either link them to a serious crime, or more likely a gun they have stolen and can’t sell on the street.

Still most of the guns are old, and abused heirlooms. I’m betting a lot of them don’t work, but the damage isn’t obvious enough for the police inspectors to find out. As a general rule gunnies find out about these buy backs and use them to turn a profit.

**UPDATE** Looks like some gun enthusiasts saved the quality guns from the scrapper! (A Mass cop once told a story about manning a buy-back table when an old woman handed over a original S&W Schofield revolver that had obviously been packed away for decades. He pointed out that the gun was worth a LOT of money, but the Woman was just happy to be rid of it. Knowing he couldn’t keep it, he pointed out to his superior that the gun could at LEAST be donated to a museum that would be glad to have it. But no, protocol dictated that all guns turned in needed to be destroyed, and this one was. Also I’m always baffled at the starry-eyed leftists who turn in their Dad’s $500 hunting rifle for $50 cash! I remember one story where the guy bragged that his wife was going to be taken out to an expensive dinner after he had turned in three decent hunting arms, two rifles with optics. I wonder if his wife would be as pleased if she’d known her dumbshit husband could be buying her a new diamond ring if he was man enough to walk into a gun shop….)

Also again citation of the Kellermann Study, which Kellermann wishes we’d all forget about. Junk science is their only friend.

Really Jason even has to twist to spin this collection as anything good. Really its a big waste of time and resources. Also note that cops manning these tables are NOT cops out on the street stopping crime.

Joan is playing the Populist Socialist card!

“The city so far has spent $462,600 on overtime costs for police officers and civilian employees following the midnight movie killings at the Century Aurora 16 theater and has applied for a federal grant to help cover the costs. The costs include investigators and responders on the morning of the shooting, security at a large vigil held later and protection for visiting dignitaries.”….

Who will pay for this? You and I will. Or I should say most likely the taxpayers of Aurora and Colorado. If you have health insurance, you may be paying higher premiums because of shootings like this. Someone has to pay for it. If you think the private health insurance companies will absorb it, think again. This is all part and parcel of the consequences of doing the bidding of the NRA. Because our elected leaders have failed in the necessary courage and leadership to speak up and stop the shootings, this is what we will continue to see in America. Something needs to change. Someone needs to speak up. Many have. But politicians are running for election. They can’t be bothered by this controversial issue. Some gun rights extremist might threaten them. Or the NRA will likely cause trouble by sending out brochures or letters of misstatements, hyperbole and fear to get leaders to just shut up when it comes to guns. Sick and sad.

Yep, its all the NRA’s fault. Because the NRA always talks about how good it is for mass shootings, and how great it is to have theaters posted “no guns” and filled with unarmed people unable to fight back. Who are the blood dancers? Who are the ones that turn tragedy into a fundraiser?

Uh huh. Oh and she links and agrees with this post:

There is a lot of quibbling over which weapons should be available to private citizens and which should be banned. I know there are vast differences between different types of guns, but when it comes to deadly weapons, nuances don’t matter. We are not talking about complex financial instruments here, but things that are used to kill people. If the real purpose of guns, as ratified by the Supreme Court, is defense of one’s home, then anything that can be used to fire dozens of rounds a minute, accommodate high-capacity clips of ammunition, or spray bullets, should not be in the hands of civilians. Period. There are no legitimate uses for such weapons in civilian life, regardless of whether you need to pull the trigger once or multiple times. So stop the quibbling and let’s agree on something reasonable on this front…..It’s true that even if we restrict gun ownership today, we cannot reclaim all the guns that are already out there (there are currently 88.8 firearms per 100 people in America, which translates to more than 270 million guns). But that doesn’t mean we can’t try. One method might be for the government to offer tax incentives to gun manufacturers to re-purchase guns, and to individuals to surrender their weapons. Such incentives would mitigate the costs to the gun industry, put money into the pockets of gun owners, and benefit society as a whole. It’s not a perfect solution but even if it nets a portion of the guns, it’s worth it. And whether we can get the existing guns back or not, let’s at least stop putting more out on the streets. As they say, when you are in a hole, first stop digging!….Yes, but so what? The condition for gun ownership cannot just be adherence to the law, but possible use. To take an example, a sane and law-abiding citizen does not need the type of rifle used by the Colorado shooter or a high-capacity clip to protect their home or hunt for deer. If they actually try to secure such items, then it is necessary to question their motives, and if we need to do that, do we really want such people having access to deadly weapons? Again, this problem can be solved by restricting the availability of certain weapons across the board.

So much for “Not coming for your guns”, Ironic in a post attempting to expose the “lies” of the gun-rights movement. BTW On my vacation one of the books I read was Suzanna Hupp’s biography. I was interested in the details of her story and the inside view of Texas Politics and Texas conceal carry, given that New England is a LONG way from Texas, and I was fairly young when all of these events took place. Still I generally consider myself very well read on pro-gun talking points so I didn’t expect anything new from that. Still she had one remark she recounted from the first Million Mom March rally in DC. She noted that most of the marchers wear clothing with a gun with a slash through it logo. This logo persists today with anti-rights lobby groups.

Mrs. Hupp pointed out that if they aren’t out there to ban and take away our guns, why do they insist on such labeling?

I think that covers most of it! Miss me? I know who didn’t!

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Quick Anti Put-Down

  1. D2k says:

    Calling a vz58 an AK is like calling a SIG550 an AR.
    Once again, not just evil, but ignorant as well.

  2. Jake says:

    Weapons of war are not guns that most people think are O.K. for civilians. That is for good reason Are we at war? Are you at war? Why do you need these kind of guns?

    They continue to insist that they’re not after our hunting rifles, yet they lack the knowledge to understand that most of those hunting rifles started out as “weapons of war”.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Yeah but those are those pesky facts they’d rather not discuss, stuff like why that Vz 58 “Sporter” is legal for me to own in Massachusetts, but the unit with the side-folder stock and a slant-cut muzzle brake threadded to the muzzle, and a bayonet lug is too dangerous for personal use.

      They never cared, they’re just looking to ban whatever they can get away with.

  3. Braden Lynch says:

    Does she live under a rock?
    We are at war and you can bet they will try more terrorist strikes against us.
    Since the police are not everywhere, perhaps a CCW holder might foil an attack.

    Yes, I need and want these types of guns because I might just really need them in the future if there is some disaster (think hurricane Katrina), social/economic collapse (think London and Greek riots), the chaotic aftermath of a nuclear attack (think Iran), governmental tyranny (think the internment of Japanese Americans) and so on. Not all of these are that unlikely. She is in denial.

    In the defense of my home, I might need heavy firepower to stop the threat. I would hate to die because I run out of rounds at 10 just so I can appeal to her sense of what is an appropriate magazine size. People miss a lot in the stress of combat or their rounds are less effective on drugged up felons. She needs to shut up since her thoughts and musings are easily show to be worthless.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      When defending my home you never know how many guys your opposition may have brought, and if the threat ends and there’s ammo still in your gun (and if you’re lucky the barrel is still cold!) that’s fine, if the threat isn’t over an your gun has run dry, that’s VERY bad!

      Also with all the street riots, you might not be just defending your home from invasion but potentially defending your very home from things like arson. When thinking about the potential of an angry mob on your street looking for violence one 30 round mag may not be enough!

  4. Greg Camp says:

    Do I really need to be free to decide whether or not to attend the local church on Sunday? It’s only an hour or so once a week. Do I need to be free to express my opinions? My big mouth gets me in trouble, anyway. Do I need to be free to tell the police that if they want to come into my home, they need a warrant? If I’m not doing anything wrong, what’s the problem?

    What these control freaks can’t fathom is that life isn’t just about sitting at home, wrapped in a blanket and feeling the illusion of safety.

    I did note one curiosity, though. If I bring Jason a junk gun, he’ll give me a gift card to a fast-food restaurant? Now, I’m confused. Guns are bad, but French fries are fine?

  5. TS says:

    Ah yes, “you don’t need that.” I would like Japete to explain to us what we do need, and most importantly why. Because if we are going to base our rights on what she says I need, I would really like to know what that is (and make sure I am not missing something critical in my safe). She hasn’t said she wants to ban Glocks, but to be sure we better hear her explanation for why I need a polymer framed semi-automatic concealable hand gun where someone is capable of swapping out 10 round magazines in less than 2 seconds. I bet she would say I need a scoped bolt action 30.06… crap- I don’t have one. Should I buy one tomorrow? How about a .357 magnum? I have wanted one for a while, but is she going to tell me I *need* one? Who is going to pay for all this? Can I get government assistance for these basic needs? Does she have all these things that she says we need? So many questions.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      There’s the elephant in the room. They talk about what guns are BAD, but never guns that are “OK”. They often say “Hunting” guns are OK….so long as “Hunting” doesn’t mean purpose-built hunting guns like the Remington R25, because while its intended as a deer gun, its ONLY FOR MURDER.

      Of course they seem happy about grand-pappy’s Winchesters M70, or a Mossberg 500, or a Rem 870…..but those Winchesters also happen to be “deadly sniper weapons that fire armor piercing cop-killer bullets”, and of course the Aurora shooting is showing you how much they love those 870 and 500/590 riot guns.

      In short, Joan wants to ban ALL guns…but she’s been instructed by her lords and masters in Joyce and Brady that she can’t ever expressly say that.

  6. Archer says:

    To shamelessly borrow from Fred at MegaTokyo:

    Yes, Weer’d, I did miss you. But I still have a few rounds left. Don’t move.


  7. Rob Crawford says:

    Why does Joan need a tax-sheltered corporation to disseminate her views?

    Does Jason Kilgore really “need” a website to push his agenda? Why not just mail letters to newspapers and stand on the street corner reading broadsides?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *