Gun Ban Govt Intelligence

[Don357]

Gun Ban Govt Intellegence?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is an article I got from my homepage, written by a lady named Eileen Sullivan. (Got to give proper credit to comply with posting rules)
I especially like the part about banning the Mini-14 with the folding stock, but allowing the one with a fixed stock. Has anybody else seen this?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress' latest crack at a new assault weapons ban would protect more than 2,200 specific firearms, including a semi-automatic rifle that is nearly identical to one of the guns used in the bloodiest shootout in FBI history.

One model of that firearm, the Ruger .223 caliber Mini-14, is on the proposed list to be banned, while a different model of the same gun is on a list of exempted firearms in legislation the Senate is considering. The gun that would be protected from the ban has fixed physical features and can't be folded to be more compact. Yet the two firearms are equally deadly.
<Copyrighted material removed>

Click here to read the rest of the article: http://news.yahoo.com/gun-ban-protect-more-2-200-firearms-132222943.html

Follow Eileen Sullivan on Twitter: http://twitter.com/esullivanap

 

[AlexanderA]

Yes, I've seen this before. Note that the inconsistency (between items on the "banned" list versus items on the "exempted" list) is not being pointed out in order to exempt more items, but rather, in order to ban more items. In other words, the source of this is from the antigun side. These people are not our friends.

 

[SunnySlopes]

"Government Intelligence." Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

[SilentStalker]

^^^^LOL, I almost spit out my coke at this .

 

[SunnySlopes]

Well, don't charge me for your keyboard if you do.

 

[316SS]

No gun ban protects any guns. It just fails to ban them. Yet. The saddlebag with eyes says she wants to "make crystal clear" that the ban won't affect hunting and sporting arms? More like she thinks the great unwashed masses (including the Fudds) are dumb enough to buy her line of bull-plop, again. What concerns me most is that she may be right.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"Government Intelligence" by itself is an oxymoron, but government intelligence in connection to the banned not-banned list in Feinstein's AWB bill is worse. I have seen this piece before.

Look, gangsters don't acquire military style guns for the military features: they get them to shoot bullets or to threaten to shoot bullets. The idea that banning military features will thwart criminal abuse of guns IS magical illogical thinking. I want a military gun as-issued as collector's item for military history, or participation in military target matches, all the military features intact. A gangster wants something that shoots. They don't care.

Here's another gun policy statement:
Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies
Greg Ridgeway, Ph.D., Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice, January 4, 2013

Prior to the 1994 ban, assault weapons were used in 2-8% of crimes. Therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.

 

[kwguy]

"They" (the antis) are reframing the argument, and we have to be careful about that. "They" are saying 'assault weapons', and we say it now as well. We ALL are starting to say "assault" weapons, as though there is any real difference, just like we are letting them get away with the assumption that there is some difference between "sporting" and "military" purposes. As far as the technical capability of a rifle is concerned, there isn't any difference. A .223 travelling at 3000 fps will have the same effect for the military as well as for the sportsman. We need to be careful about the assumption of terminology. A self loading sporting rifle is no different from a self loading military rifle, so let's not give their stupidity any credence. It's just a rifle.

 

[Shadow 7D]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Watch the slip, this is a LONG TERM game

when you fight on their terms, you fight on their grounds