Oliver posts this picture of a TEC-9 and states:
“They [the Gun Lobby] frighten people like me because they’re such extremists. In what world do you need a weapon like this for “hunting” or “personal security”? That’s just lunacy, and society will pay the price.”
I guess we should credit Oliver for accidental honesty, because in one brief post he has summed up the entire liberal position for the Assault Weapon Ban, which boils down to “Some guns are scary looking.”
Does this one scare you?
How bout these nasty looking ones?
Woops. Those last ones were made of legos. Still pretty scary, though.
More here on the idiocy of the “Assault Weapon Ban.”
*** Update ***
At least Soros can keep his folks in line- here is FactCheck’s utter evisceration of MoveOn.Org’s latest commercial in which MoveOn spreads the same old lies that Oliver is spreading, as well as adding in a few new ones.
Fact Check calls the ad “about as misleading as it can be” and “and constitute(s) false political advertising.”
Lies and the lying liars. (via Instapundit)
Oliver
Except that the second gun could legitimately serve a self-defense function. As long as folks like yourself profess the need to have machine guns for “protection”, the longer folks like me will call you “nuts”.
Meezer
Here’s a quote from Switzerland (Aug. 2004):
“”I have my gun at home. That’s been normality for more than a century,” defence ministry spokesman Philippe Zahno told AFP, explaining why a sudden political flurry had disrupted the usually placid summer holiday.
“We do have an incredibly large number of weapons dispersed among our citizens but it’s part of our liberal tradition and the great confidence that the state places in its citizens,” he added.”
Notice that: It’s part of our liberal tradition. (snort!) Why can’t we have liberals like those?
Sandi
I don’t see how it matters if you protect yourself with a bland looking gun or a snazy mean looking gun. I have three rifles and one .25cal purse gun. My father taught me to shoot, and gun safty when I was 14. All of my guns put together have killed less people than Ed Kennedy’s car.
Annoy a liberal, Work Hard and Smile.
pdb
Oliver, I’d like to know: What do you believe is the functional difference between gun #1 and gun #2? Why does #1 bother you and #2 does not?
They’re both recoil operated, have 30 round magazines available, and both chambered in 9x19mm.
Personally, I’d consider #2 more of a threat, since it’s not a heavy, bulky, unreliable jam-o-matic with crap sights.
So, what gives?
Patrick
Oliver, you of any poster here should be sensitive to the offense you just commited. You are descriminating against gun #1 on the basis of it’s appearance. It still puts out one bullet per squeeze, it’s no more accurate than #1 (and arguably less so as it does not lend itself to sighting as a normal pistol does.) If one wanted to put 20 bullets thru an object, there would be virtually no time difference between #’s 1 & 2. So it’s all about appearance.
So what if you lived out in rural Iowa where the Highway Patrolman or the County Sheriff was thirty minutes away? Which one would you rather have when the local meth-head came kicking your door down?
And please don’t answer a question with either a question or “scare quotes”.
Addison
This is why the people who currently inhabit the “left” frighten me.
Doesn’t matter what the facts are, they can find something to change the argument to, and keep it from being factual.
“Ooh, that gun’s too scary! That one has too many bullets! This one’s too big! that one’s too small!”
“2nd amendment! It’s about hunting! Guns? Sure, I support gun ownership. Just not any specific gun, because they scare me, but sure, in theory, people should be able to have guns. Just nobody near me, because that would scare me. Just cops. But they’re all racist bastards, I don’t trust them, either. “
Addison
Oh, and Oliver?
As long as you – knowingly – call a semiautomatic pistol a “machine gun” (which is a full-automatic weapon, firing a “full” rifle round (see also, Assault Rifle, and Submachine gun)) – then expect us to deride your lies (knowing it’s a falsehood, and still using it as your basis for making a decison) as a mental condition that you have, and while it might disqualify you from owning a gun, it doesn’t, and shouldn’t DQ us.
CadillaqJaq
If “scary looking” is a liberal criterion for unacceptance, John F. Kerry is more “scary looking” than GWB so why isn’t he banned?
Justin O.
I don’t need to protect myself with a gun, alot of people I know who haven’t protected themself with a gun have lived just fine without having one in their home.
Oliver
To clear up, John, I disagree with the MoveOn ad. I don’t think the ban went far enough, personally. The only pseudo-legit use I can see for weapons like this is for hunting and self-protection (and barely in either case). For me – and speaking just for me – anything besides a simple handgun or shotgun is crazy.
John Cole
Justin-
Good. Don’t buy one. See how easy that is? No scary guns in your household.
Oliver- People should be able to use whatever weapon they want as long as itdoes not involve a criminal act.
S.W. Anderson
Interestingly, one of the ranking police types in my community was interviewed on TV last night. Not about assault-type weapons specifically, but just guns generally, he noted most gun crimes any more involve the use of stolen guns hereabouts.
What makes this interesting is that, like you, I suspect, I believe 99 percent of people who would buy an assault weapon would be highly responsible with them. What worries me is how well might they secure the gun when not in use.
If 80 percent of assault weapon owners really take care to secure them, that still leaves quite a few vulnerable to being stolen and used in crimes. That goes even for dealers. And not long ago, a pawn shop hereabouts had more 200-plus guns of various kinds stolen. To my knowledge, those guns have not been recovered.
I’m well aware guns don’t cause people to commit crimes and I don’t want to spoil enthusiasts’ ability to buy and use a wide range of gun types. Still, for reasons such as I’ve mentioned above, coupled with the way our society keeps nut cases anywhere but in mental hospitals, coupled with the potential for one criminal or nutcase to do so much damage before being stopped, I have a hard time accepting why assault-type weapons like the Tec are a good idea in general circulation.
Brian
The second amemndment has nothing to do with hunting. In a SCOTUS decision that actually supported the sawed off shotgun provision of the 1934 NFA, the court ruled that military firearms were protected since the purpose of the 2nd isn’t to protect hunters but rather to allow citizens the means to repel tyranical incursions even from within. Since there was no military use for a sawed off shotgun, it was not a protected item. Many of the scarey looking firearms are exactly the sorts of firearms that should be rightfully protected. In that sense, most gun control laws are bogus and a violation of the COTUS. However, clever FDR made firearms regulation a matter interstate commerce and the laws are largely based on the legislative authority to regulate same.
CadillaqJaq
When a 30.06 hunting rifle that mydear departed Dad used to hunt white tailed deer in northern Michigan suddenly comes under attack by some pansy-assed liberal labeling it an “assault weapon,” I get concerned. My Dad’s fist was an “assaualt weapon” if provoked.
Earlier in the week I heard rumblings that even center-fired ammo (pretty stock stuff for hunting rifles, even shot-guns) is now being considered as dangerous and should be deemed illegal.
Maybe Zel Miller’s “spitball” comment wasn’t that far from reality if the anti-2nd amendment folks ever gain enough control to rewrite and pass an anti-constitutional guarantee.
Sharp as a Marble
Ollie, you are a lovely dancer. You’re presented with a question (why is #1 worse than #2) and you fail to answer it and just blather along about something else.
And Justin O. Good for you! Hope no one ever breaks into your house. As for me, I’m typing this right now because of the one time I’ve actually had to pull a firearm in self defence. No one was killed, and no shots were ever fired. Had I not had the gun, a shot would have been fired and I would be another statistic for Ollie to gloat over.
TM Lutas
I can just see it now. Next season’s new makeover hit, “queer eye for the scary gun”. Considering the voting weight of this country, doesn’t the Greenwich Village crowd fear the idea of midwestern fashion police? They should, as they’re establishing a principle that looking scary can impose a 10 year ban on certain looks.
Sharp as a Marble
TM, if that were the case David Bowie would have been outlawed in the 80’s.
pdb
Since Oliver won’t come out and play, I’ll answer for him. Since the guns are functionally identical, there are only two logical explanations for banning gun #1 and not gun #2:
Either:
a) Gun #1 looks scarier to the uneducated eye whose knowledge of firearms comes from the movies and TV.
Or…
b) Since a), there’s a greater chance of getting a ban passed on that ‘class’ of guns as a foot in the door to get a ban passed on guns in ‘class’ #2 later.
So either Oliver is operating out of pure ignorance, fear and emotion, or he’s cynically and dishonestly exploiting the ignorance and emotion of the public to get more guns banned than he’s asking for now.
I’d just like to know which, that’s all.
Addison
“I don’t think the ban went far enough, personally.”
Gee, I thought that was the whole point that John was trying to make. It was a fake “ban”, meant to be a wedge issue and start a slope.
(And it’s been vehemently denied by most [people who want to empower the government to be the only force], and admitted to often, then the admission denied.
“The only pseudo-legit”
“pseudo legit?”
Do we need to hear anything else from you? Self defense is Pseudo-legit? The Bill of Rights is pseudo-legit? So, I guess your “right” to “free speech” is pseudo-legit, too?
All the rest of what I would say pales in comparison to that stunning admission of insistance for government control.
Protecting yourself, your family, is only “kind of” a legitimate issue. Hey, Ollie? Why not take some of the Soros money and move over to England. It’s not psuedo-legit there anymore, it’s totally illegitimate. At least legally.
And you keep calling other people crazy? Projection.
Oh, and again, the tek-9 is a “simpler” (less moving parts, simpler operation) handgun than the Beretta. Who’s being crazy again? After all, you want a “simple” gun, but then you say the “simple” guns are too “scary”
Aww. What if we refinished it pink? Would dat be better? Less scawwy?
jeff
I’ll bet if somebody broke into his house and raided his fridge, Oliver would then support firearms for home protection.
Addison
Well, I think there’s enough legitimate issues with Oliver’s state of mind to debate, rather than decending into appearance insults.
(though, you have to admit, there’s a definate petard to be hoisted on there with this subject)
boatswain
this is the greatest snarkiest most fabulous post ever!
Oliver: the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed- so it really doesnt matter what scares you according to our most sacred founding fathers- your business ends where the tip of my nose begins
dont get your panties in a bunch they all just fire 1 bullet every time you pull the trigger.
and your “regular” shot gun would have been taken away by the nanny state gun grabbers ban too. give them an inch and they will take a mile. I am GOING SHOPPING! flash suppressors, extended capacity clips, hell bayonets load my cart up brother! the only rational I need is that it scares you and that makes me all warm and tingly inside.
smarter_than_you
Brilliant job on talking about the assault weapons ban dumbass!
Hmm, I think it makes sense to let any fucking terrorist buy a gun off of the street and use it.. that makes our great country safer!
A vote for the republicans is a vote in support of torture, giant deficits and invasion! Can’t wait for the fucking revolution.
JJACITELLI
smarter than you,
“Can’t wait for the fucking revolution.”
I’m sorry, but I just have to ask you, How exactly are you going to start a revolution without all those scary guns?
S.W. Anderson
“When a 30.06 hunting rifle that mydear departed Dad used to hunt white tailed deer in northern Michigan suddenly comes under attack by some pansy-assed liberal labeling it an ‘assault weapon,’ I get concerned. My Dad’s fist was an ‘assaualt weapon’ if provoked.
This is what we call a bogeyman: “some pansy-assed liberal.” No name, time, date, place, no specifics. Nope, just stereotype anyone and everyone who has ideas or preferences different from your own, preferably employing a little snotty name calling for added put-down effect.
This kind of thing is why some so-called elitist liberal types tend to think of hardcore, wear-my-gun-in-the-john-cause-it’s-my-Constitutional, God-given-right , right wingers as less than brilliant folks who’d have to do some serious social climbing to attain trailer-trash status.
“Earlier in the week I heard rumblings that even center-fired ammo (pretty stock stuff for hunting rifles, even shot-guns) is now being considered as dangerous and should be deemed illegal.”
You can be sure you will hear many more rumblings like that, some of them even more ominous
Chris Arndt
Oliver thinks the first gun is an automatic weapon? Oliver is either stupid or Oliver is arrogant.
I won’t say that Oliver is both, YET.
Chris Arndt
Why would a terrorist buy a gun off the street? Why wouldn’t he steal it?
Dean
Which do you think is a better source of guns:
Purchasing guns from retail establishments in the US.
Purchasing guns from wholesale establishments in the US.
Purchasing guns from Third World arsenals, often in the employ of friendly dictators.
Which one do you think has the least oversight and paper trail?
Oh, and one last thought: How many of the 9-11 hijackers used guns purchased legally (or illegally) in the United States?
Bloggerhead
In light of the fact that a good number of big-city police chiefs support the ban, the issue is not so black and white as to the effectiveness of the ban. Still, a sloppily written law infringing upon a protected (though not uninfringable, I might add) right is probably worse than no law at all. Perhaps we can craft a more coherent and effective ban–and it may even be a broader one–for there is plenty of national opinion that Oliver and the police chiefs represent. Imagine the hitherto characteristic Ashcroftian response to co-ordinated, Columbine-style attacks on, say, shopping malls by terrorists using these banned weapons. Nah, I don’t want to either, but we probably should.
Too, in light of the current blog self-satisfaction, I perceive FactCheck’s evisceration as only partial (still leaves a mark, however), and telling. Sure, MoveOn grossly misleads about the nature of these guns, but for FactCheck to hold up Bush’s promises to sign a new ban as his not, in fact, not letting the ban expire is only literally true, and ignores certain political realities. Bush’s promises mean squat here. He knew, the NRA knew, you & I knew, and FactCheck should bloody well know, that there was no chance in hell that a renewal of the ban would come from a crazy Republican House. Imagine, again, the White House actually pursuing what Bush’s promise implies, that he agrees with the ban, and demanding the Congress to send him a renewal to sign. Nah, I can’t either.
CadillaqJaq
So… S.W. Anderson, if you are finished with your scathing retort to my opinion, please tell me what is it about hunting rifles, shotguns, good ol’ boys and trailer trash that you don’t like?
Justin O.
Yeah it seemed after 9/11, box cutters were a dangerous weapon. The planes were the weapon, not the box cutters, the razor blades was a tool to use the weapon. Did everyone get razor bladed to death? Those razor blades sure can do some damage, I might start protecting my home with a BOX CUTTER. If a terrorist can use a razor blade so well on 9/11, well damnit, I can protect my home with it too! Alot more dangerous than a gun alright!
Dean
Justin:
First, you might notice that you can’t carry a box-cutter aboard an aircraft anymore.
Second, and more on-topic to this thread: What is the evidence that al-Qaeda terrorists have purchased guns from the United States for terrorist purposes?
Third, what evidence is there that they have purchased “assault weapons,” as defined under the now-expired ban?
After all, John Kerry’s point (and the reason for the original post by Cole) is that it is the AWB that has prevented terrorists from equipping themselves from US gun-shops. Evidence?
Chris Arndt
Why would a sensible person renew this ban unless he was under political pressure?
S.W. Anderson
CadillaqJaq, since you asked: I have nothing against shotguns or hunting rifles
Dean
So, SW, what is your reaction to a statement such as this:
*I don’t think the ban went far enough, personally. The only pseudo-legit use I can see for weapons like this is for hunting and self-protection (and barely in either case).*
Is someone who makes this argument shrill and to be ignored?
Jeff
Why would anyone support gun control when international statistics prove it leads to more crime? The UN is a major advocate of gun control around the world yet their own 2000 International Crime Victims Survey showed that the United States now has *LOWER* overall crime rates than the UK and Australia. Remember when the US was more violent than the UK, that was before the Brits passed their strict gun control laws, and before our gun control laws became less restrictive.
Interestingly, the UK has about the same crime rates we do in areas that don’t involve direct confrontation between criminal and victim, but in each area that invovles a direct confrontation with a victim the UK’s rate is about twice the US rate. Criminals in the US don’t want to confront their victims because they are afraid of being shot.
Jeff
Oh, and those surveys about what a large percentage of the public supports restrictions on “Assault Weapons” are terribly flawed. Most use wording like “Do you support a ban on assault weapons like the AK-47?” Of course most people say yes, and then the mainstream media say “The public supports the banning of assault weapons,” when the poll actually says that they support a ban on assault rifles like the AK-47. An assault rifle btw, is a fully automatic machinegun, and ownership of these weapons has been restricted since 1934. Since that time only *ONE* legally owned machinegun has been used in a crime, and that case was actually a cop using it to kill an informant.