Gun-toting hatemongers: They're ba-a-a-a-a-a-ack
By David Neiwert Wednesday Apr 29, 2009 10:30amOne of the main takeaways from the phony controversy over the DHS' bulletin on right-wing extremism was the self-revealing way that mainstream conservatives attempted to obliterate from public view the very real existence of the ongoing threat to their well-being from right-wing extremists.
Why the frantic effort to obscure this reality? Because they know the ideological and associative distance between far-right extremists and mainstream conservatives has shrunk dramatically over the past 10 years. They dread the consequences of what will happen when the real ugliness starts to break out.
The Ugly Storm has been gathering for awhile. We've been reporting regularly on the increasing activities of far-right extremists, particularly the anti-Obama racism rampant throughout much of this contingent. Of course, it doesn't help when mainstream conservative media are fanning those flames, either. And it seems like it's getting close to an outright explosion.
My friend Max Blumenthal went to a gun show in California and emerged with the above video and the following report:
Fueled by the screeds of radio hosts Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and the lesser-known but increasingly influential online conspiracist Alex Jones, many gun-show attendees I spoke to were convinced Obama planned to usher in a Marxist dictatorship. They warned that the president’s power grab would only begin with mass gun seizures. “If Obama takes away our guns,” a young, .45 pistol-toting man from Reno told me, “it’s just a step into trying to take away everything else.”
Indeed, in their minds, average Americans opposed to the Obama agenda would be herded into FEMA-run concentration camps by a volunteer army of glassy-eyed liberal college graduates. “When they start imprisoning Americans, and people start seeing that we’re the enemy, then that’ll make it hot,” predicted one Antioch-based young man sporting a button for former Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul. “People talk about a revolution,” the young man continued, “an armed revolution. I think police crackdowns on individuals will tip the scales.”
More than a few gun dealers and attendees echoed the young man’s seeming enthusiasm for armed revolt. One Contra Costa, California-based gun dealer named Rich predicted during an otherwise casual off-camera conversation that “some nut” would assassinate Obama within one year of any Democratic attempt at gun-control legislation. While the prospect of organized right-wing violence against the federal government seems far-fetched at this point, the paranoid rhetoric I documented suggests the militia movement that organized against President Bill Clinton’s policies during the 1990s could experience a dramatic resurgence by mobilizing resentment against Obama.
The gun-show crowd is more the "Patriot" contingent of far-right extremism: obsessed with guns and conspiracy theories, yet capable of paranoid bursts of extreme violence by "lone wolf" actors.
Yet we're also seeing a similar upsurge in outright white-supremacist organizations. Newsweek also has a report on this trend from Eve Conant:
It's not about hate, it's about love. Love of white people. That's the message in songs, speeches and casual conversation during a weekend retreat in Zinc, Ark., sponsored by the Christian Revival Center and the Knights Party, an offshoot of the Ku Klux Klan. There's no overt threat of violence here. No cross burnings (or "lightings," as the KKK prefers to call them). The only fire at the grassy compound, located at the end of a long, rocky road circled by turkey vultures, is a bonfire for the Knights youth corps to roast their s'mores. The kids draw pictures of white-hooded Klanspeople and sing songs about the oppressed Aryan race; rousing sermons are read from Bibles decorated with Confederate flags. Aryan souvenirs are for sale, including baseball caps proclaiming IT'S LOVE, NOT HATE and advertising THE ORIGINAL BOYZ IN THE HOOD.
... The haters are doing their best, in other words, to move out from the fringe and toward the mainstream—and they're boasting some success.
Indoctrination often starts on the Internet. Some crazies posting on MySpace, for instance, have called for armed revolution; at least one has referred to Barack Obama as "a dead man." But many leaders of white-supremacist groups and Web forums are toning down their rhetoric. The aim is to attract the kind of person Robb describes as "the guy down the road who until now had his plasma TV and car in the garage, but just lost his job and won't find a new one because some illegal already has it."
Conant also explores where we're at in the far right's usual arc of flight:
The ADL's Mark Pitcavage says it is very difficult to track hate-group numbers because the organizations often splinter. What he tries to track is anger levels, and those, he warns, are rising—despite any superficial sweet talk: "The white-supremacist movement has been at red-hot anger levels for a long time. When I get concerned is when they get to white hot, where you see large bomb plots or talk about race wars. Right now we're at very red hot, and are concerned we might reach white hot again." He points to the MySpace account of "88Charles88" as an example of what he's seeing (88 is code for "Heil, Hitler" in the white-power world). "Charles" attacks Obama and says, "Now it's time to fight." "There is a lot of anger out there," says Pitcavage, "and these groups are trying to stoke it, to get someone like 88Charles88 to take the next step. What we're seeing is not a softening, but a hardening of attitude."
Pitcavage says current rhetoric resembles that of the early '90s (including conspiracy theories about FEMA concentration camps and gun confiscations), just before the outbreak of the white-militia movements. While some leaders of extremist groups may use softer recruiting tactics, "their membership is not toning down at all," says Pitcavage. For every NSM member, there is a nonaffiliated skinhead posting entries to hate blogs. If Stormfront has tried to tone down, that has only inspired a competing site—Vanguard—to showcase violent alternatives.
Some civil-rights activists are more worried about the racists they can't see than the showboaters trying to draw attention to themselves. "We're not going back to the '50s," says Mark Potok of the SPLC. "The country has moved forward in remarkable ways. But with that breakthrough comes something of a backlash." It's the loners, he says, who are most worrisome: "The lone-wolf idea is much scarier than the big-plot idea. Big plots don't succeed because these guys cannot keep their mouths shut."








Login or Register to post comments.
.
My little town, albuquerque has a pretty good sized contingent of god-blighted gun-loons...they never went anywhere...(probably part of their problem, but waddoIno?
Ahhh - the wisdom of the reich-wing: Speak stupidly and carry a big gun.
n/c
of private ammunition then any other country on the planet.
As well as far more guns.
how about fuck you?
You want the government to have weapons and not us?
People forget how this country was made, by citizens with guns.
I don't want to hurt anyone ever. But we have to have the option.
gun owners, it is a bit surprising that there is so much crime. It doesn't seem to make any sense.
That's because grenades and rocket launchers are still illegal. If we have a god given right to guns, we also have the same god given right to bombs and rockets. Who are you to tell me i can't protect myself once every other person is carrying a gun.
You think a guy is gonna rob me and my family at gun point if i have a bazooka? He will think again, i assure you.
j/k
flintlocks as you can carry, brudda...
Actually it is you who forget how this country was made. It was due to the French bankrupting themselves by military supporting the Continental Army. Militas and private citizens were worthless against the Red Army. They were just an annoyance without the French support and the Continental Army fighting the Red Army would have triumphed over the indepedance forces. The militas were often incompetant unwilling to fight they just wanted to stay home drinking beer.
You simplify and come off wrong.
paranoid thoughts about the "government" having all the weapons is exactly the same crowd that attacks anyone with a foreign policy difference for not "supporting our troops". Is it supporting the troops to suggest that private gun ownership is necessary to protect the country against the troops? That's just wacky.
It's not paranoia, it's a left over from the libertarian
days of my youth. It stems from the idea that the state
should not be able to kill it's citizens, unless of course
in the defense of other citizens.
It's also part of the CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!
So should we be allowed to keep bazookas by the same principal? The state has us totally out guned as it is, with their bazookas. Doesn't that once again allow the state to kill it's citizens at will, since it renders guns virtually useless?
If that idea is going to work, it won't be with guns. That day is over. I think the rational thing to do is for everyone to stand down their pea-shooters and simply prosecute criminal activity in the state. That way it can never become the enemy of the people.
If what you are saying is corect then the people toting guns are the ones who should most vocally want the BuschCo state prosecuted.
Bazookas are a launcher vehicle for "destructive devices".
Now whose full of shit. You wouldn't know whats in the constitution if your life depended on it. You give gun owners like myself a bad name.
..I'm against people owning Glocks with teflon coated bullets (cop-killers) or hollow-points, any kind of bullet that will penetrate a vest -OR- AK-47's, what the hell does anyone, not a terrorist or soldier, need an AK-47 for? I'm against anyone saying the Second Amendment is a free pass; you're supposed to be a member of a regulated militia. I'm against "Selling" guns at a Gun Show or not doing a Full background check on anyone who wants to buy a gun.
Glock handguns may be loaded with many different types of ammunition, not merely teflon-coated or hollowpoint ammunition. Additionally, neither teflon coating nor a hollow point will increase the penetrative ability of any handgun or rifle round; a teflon coating serves only to reduce wear upon the barrel of a firearm and cannot affect the ballistic force or penetration capability of a projectile, and "hollowpoint" ammunition in fact possesses reduced penetration ability as compared to more traditional full metal jacket ammunition. Any handgun ammunition that can penetrate Type 2 police body armour is already restricted by federal law.
Actual AK-47s rifles -- that is, fully automatic 1947-model Kalashnikov rifles -- are strictly regulated by the 1934 National Firearms Act and are very difficult for United States citizens to acquire. Semi-automatic firearms based upon the Kalashnikov action -- often incorrectly called "AK-47" rifles because of their cosmetic resemblance to the actual assault rifle, even though they are incapable of fully automatic operation -- have become popular recreational target rifles and hunting rifles because of their reputed reliability and durability; they thus serve the "needs" of hunters and target shooters even for hunters and shooters who are neither soldiers nor terrorists.
Your assertion that individuals are required to be members of a "regulated militia" is entirely unjustified, and is supported by no legal precedent at all.
Can you explain why you oppose firearms sales at "gun shows"?
a pretty big legal precedent.
Although I must say I am quite impressed with the NRA's IT dept, if indeed they were the ones who made such a magnificent bot.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution establishes no precedent requiring membership in a "well regulated militia".
I am not, in any way, affiliated with the National Rifle Association.
... here is the 2nd amendment to the US constitution in its fully glory:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
May I direct your attention to the 1st sentence, thanks.,
It does not, in any way, proscribe membership in a "well regulated militia". In fact, it only addresses the subject of a "well regulated militia" as being a justification for prohibiting an infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"; it is not mentioned as a requirement of any individual, however. Your assertion is supported neither by the evident language of the Amendment nor by any court ruling made regarding the intent and application of the Amendment.
the amendment also does not give you the right to own guns, just to bear and keep them.
I assume the founding fathers thew in the "well regulated militia" bit because it was such an awesome opener, and help them maintain good literary flow right after the 1st amendment. Since that sentecne clearly has nothing to do with the rest of the amendment, and it seems to be the only "optional" part of the US constitution... right?
The amendment never really addresses guns. They restrict the size of knife blades, and the mailing of such items as well as explosives, and martial arts weaponry without excessive complaints from weapon fanciers.
The 1 and 2nd article tells explicitely in sec. 8 cl. 14-15 that Congress regulates the weaponry and training when State Militias are in the Federal Government's service, and Article 2 sec. 2 specifies that the president is commander in chief of the militias when called to service.
It doesn't say who performs what functions during times of peace, and presumably left that for the state governments.
Even in the recent case of the District of Columbia v Heller, where the Supremes presume a right to own guns, they reserve the right of Congress to regulate them.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment establishes a protection upon the right to keep and bear arms that are "in common use", and also stated outright that this protection is unconnected with an individual's service in a militia.
They were also trying to prevent state governments from refusing to send their militias during wars, like some did during the Revolution, upon the Continental Congress's request.
The Bill of Rights merely recognizes certain rights as being inherent, and prohibits government infringement upon them.
The United States Supreme Court has explicitly stated that the Second Amendment forbids government prohibitions of classes of firearms that are "in common use", and that an individual's right to keep and bear arms is unconnected with service in a militia. Their statement on that subject constitutes United States law. As I have noted, your suggestion that a "well regulated militia" is established as a requirement is entirely unsupported by any law and in fact it directly contradicts established United States law.
Where'd you get your legal training. Admittedly, mine is as a paralegal and historian.
But that was after my stint in the Air Force.
And the Constitution does not guarantee any ABSOLUTE rights; like the tripartite structure for federal governances, they expect rights to check and balance each other. Playing semantic games between the granting of rights and the protection of rights is pointless.
I am simply aware that the United States Supreme Court has stated, as a matter of law, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to any militia service.
I forgot to mention the bulk of my degree was in Political Science.
I always find it interesting that the NRA considers the right to keep and bear arms an 'absolute' right, with no attached responsibilities.
The ACLU (Which they decry for being ultra left wing) defends the Bill of Right vociferously, but has never tried to claim that the right to free speech means you can lie about people, or freedom of religion protects human sacrifice, which (IMO) would be the equivalent point on the spectrum to the NRA belief that the right to bear arms was intended to cover military grade assault weaponry.
But amazingly enough, they always talk as if the ACLU was over the top.
Splinter in others eye, meet plank in your own.
The National Rifle Association openly endorses existing federal regulation prohibiting firearms possession by individuals convicted of felony offenses, by individuals adjuciated as mentally defective, by domestic violence offenders and by habitual narcotics offenders. The Association has also assisted in authoring legislation intended to improve background investigations on firearms purchasers to better enforce those restrictions. They have also never suggested that the right to keep and bear arms protects a right to possess "military-grade" firearms, as they do not endorse repealment of the 1934 National Firearms Act, which greatly restricts access to such firearms. I am also unaware of any specific official statement made by the National Rifle Association that addresses the policies of the American Civil Liberties Union, though I confess that I may simply be lacking information on that particular issue.
You're conflating natural rights with constitutional rights.
One can presume a natural right to have sex, but not openly in a public park.
And until recently there were laws restricting who you can marry (race), or even who could have kids, because until the 1970's the children of the retarded could be taken away in "the interest of the child."
Not until District of Columbia v Heller, I believe 2007, and even there the court reserved the right of Congress and other legistlatures to regulate them.
I am for serial numbers on bullets and casings. Cheap, and it keeps the shooter honest, responsible, and careful.
We can all get behind that.
Oh, except for bad people. They will object of coarse.
Claiming that only "bad people" will object to a proposal is a pre-emptive "ad hominem", and not a logical justification of the proposal.
Serializing bullets and casings will not be inexpensive. Additionally, such a proposal suggests ignorance of home reloaders, who recycle brass casings and who often cast their own bullets.
Why don't you just get better educated on Obama's policies instead of following the rightwing, fear toting blowhards?!? I'll take my govt's gun-toting warriors over you and your ilk anyday. Bring it on....I would like nothing more than to shut your traps forever.
Bunch of uneducated morons.
ur guns vs their tanks, helicopters etc... how's that gonna work out?
Such a prohibition is entirely unreasonable.
The sad part is that Americans are imprisoned, by draconian drug laws.
These people don't realize that they have days off, vacations, clean
food and water, education, roads, and schools because those goddamn
liberals fought and died for those rights. And if we have to fight and
die against these tools of the plutocracy so be it.
This is one liberal that isn't a stereotypical left wing pansy.
Call your republican congessman or senator and ask him/her if they are willing to be waterboarded for charity!
they could take out all these gun welding hillbillies with one predator drone.
Idiots.
to get the rifle out of Charlton Heston's hands?
n/t
At the beginning you hear someone say that you can own a gun as long as you are a sane, responsible human being and the first thought I had was "well, that eleminates the entire Republican party!" when do they have to turn in their guns?
that the right to bear guns was given to us by God. So the question begs to be asked: Is Jesus an AR man, would he favor the socialistic HK, or is he a full blown AK-wielding commie?
What would Jesus shoot?
they do not accept Him as their personal savior and who regularly make fun of His Church in Rome?
The "personal savior" notion (that everyone can have their own "pocket Jesus" to carry around with them) has little to do with The Roman Catholic Church.
I would have thought you would fault me for missing the question. Tyler did, after all, ask what would He shoot, not who?
"prince of peace" would favor.
If owning guns is a god-given right, God must have some sort of predilection right?
Isn't that part of the point of organized religion: to tell us what god wants, which may differ from what god wants for other religious groups... and which may be clearly wrong, since "our" organized religion is right and "their" organized religion is not.
Furthermore, another question begs to be asked: If god gave us the right to bear guns. And this is an all powerful god, how come we just get crappy firearms. Wouldn't have god endowed us with the power to shoot laser beams from our asses if he or she was so concerned about our protection.
Sure, guns do work when protecting ourselves from the casual misguided deer. But what happens when we have to defend ourselves from Aliens. An all knowing deity should have been able to forecast such a scenario, and endow us with the correct right.
anticipate the rib experiment going so far awry.
Otherwide he would have given you a laser but would have put it where you are accustomed to manipulation with your shooting fingers so you could not only see your target, but aim and fondly caress your weapon.
ancient texts may reveal the true name for our Lord and Savior is actually Prince of Peace Keepers.
Scientology will be ancient texts. Perhaps they will be dust, and the only information will be fragments of tabloids proving that once there was a King who died and was resurrected and seen at malls and drugstores and was known as Elvis.
Wasn't the orator who said "the right to bear arms was given to us by God" Glenn Beck? It sure sounds like him.
And these insane cultists want to pretend they're not proto terrorists. Amazing. How are these fucking insane rightards any different than their Islamic colleagues?
They live here among us. They are teachers, nurses, cops and truck
drivers. They go to church, They drive suvs. They shop at Walmart,
they watch pro sports. They save so their wives can get boob jobs.
They are consumers. They consume the easiest product available...hate.
They have a reason to hate. Their standard of living is going to hell.
Why? Because the right wing plutocrats they love and emulate are working
against them...outsourcing their jobs, destroying the environment
breaking pension funds, rationing healthcare. But unlike us they take
the easy way out, like the Germans did in the 30s.
was an admonition to follow a path to a larger pair of breasts for my Missus, I would have been a follower long ago.
many of these people only relate to ...."your either with us or your against us". many of these people
are told they are HATED by people that don't live like them. which is really in my book not very american. they really don't believe in freedom. they believe in how they live their lives NOT how others may differ in living theirs. that's what hannity,beck,coulter,rush and savage do....they tell their listeners we HATE them so they HATE us back. while it's all happening their jobs are being sent overseas and homes are going into foreclosure.
Their leaders keep them ignorant and hating and they oblige their leaders.
...take your job, be your boss, date your daughter, make your wife smile(like you once did). Arm yourself! Protect what's yours! They're coming! You've been warned.
You're bang on...
their last social constants are shrivelling like their roid-ravaged balls...
hey legal gun ownership is fine with me. i just believe there should be some regulation on ownership. i still say this is being used as a divider of demographics for the most part. i do realize dems. own guns.
i still say the rights and concerns these people have are being taken away by their own party. they do NOT see it because the inability to be a contrarian. they are led to believe that the liberals want to take their guns in order to put them in the (r) party. so anything else taken away from them is overlooked because they have a tight grip on that gun and bible. as long as they're pre-occupied with their gun and bible they will miss the fact that wallStreet is reducing their economic lives. i could be wrong it's just my opinion. this is ongoing wedge issue to divide people to take a political side(r). these people need to look at BUSH who created a huge deficit,"cheap labor",anti union and expanded the government. they can't see it, as long as their side tells them the otherside wants their guns and bible. it's old stuff that works on certain demographics.
Now we can bring a .50 cal wherever we go! Boohoo! You know, for personal protection, of course!
Of course it's for personal protection. Then, if some mugger approaches, you can open the case, take out the parts, assemble it, set up the tripod, load the magazine, release the safety, and blow that sucker away.
Or it could be used to sit in your front window, guarding your house from evil liberals or cops, who will march down your street knocking on doors and confiscating all guns, and forcing your children to attend re education sessions.
Either he's a Fascist, a Socialist, or a Marxist. Choose one, idiots.
or morans. http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/f/f/g... either/or.
They're Irish?
A leprechaun always thinks people are after his lucky charms. And gun nuts think people are after their guns.
I don't think it is a coincidence...
he's a corporatist, through and through.
...all bullshit excuses to be violent, racist, ANARCHISTS!
These are exactly the types of people exhibiting the exact paranoid mindset that should not be allowed to have firearms. Normal people should still be allowed to own and use firearms, absolutely, but these frothing Christanic terrorists are of the mindset whereby they exhibit every reason to be denied access to weapons.
I usually try to sound intelligent whilst commenting but I really need to get this off my chest:
EW!EW! EW EWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! These stupid people are effing gross! Their mullets are greasy and their clothes are cheap! Bunch of fat heads playing GI Joe.
And what are they going to do, start their own country? take over the government? THEY CAN'T EVEN SPELL!!!
And just who the hell would want to live in a country run by these pigf***ers anyway??
The pigfuckers, maybe?
.
Ah, yes, the roar of the greasepaint, the smell of the crowd...
F U N N Y!!!
Actually, that's the best post so far. Exactly what I was thinkin'. It's these very whackos that worry me the most.
John F. Kennedy was driving through Dallas among many gun owners.
It wasn't one of those who killed him.
It was the CIA.
Know your enemy.
wow
...so says your newest Dem, Snarlin' Arlen Specter.
really driving through Dallas. He was driven.
Good point ricky.
You really don't know who killed Kennedy, and don't distract from the fact that these paranoid racist fucks are clearly preparing for an conjured race war simply because they despise the fact that a black dude is sleeping in the "White" house.
No matter what the topic is, we always get the apologist of the nutbars. I mean, it takes some serious mental contortion capabilities to try to morph this debate into JFK's assassination.
Ghandi wasn't killed by an American gun nut, so I guess them gun nuts must be alright (following the same line of reasoning as the parent poster).
is a God given right.
But which amendment did our founding fathers create to protect that right?
Everybody knows the founding fathers never heard of Nostradamus and thus could not have written a predictive
amendment to cover the Warren Commission coverup.
Don't try to confound me with your college-educated gobbledy-goo. I KNOW MY RIGHTS!
Many would have said my gobbledy-goo was ignorant.
You are a discerning scholar.
Hey, I thought he was gonna paint the WH "Black". What happened?
And stop watching Oliver Stone's fictional JFK film
You JFK conspiracy nuts are as bad as the moon landing hoaxers and 9/11 'truther' crowd.
but in point mof fact the wearing of a tinfoil hat has nothing to do with any of the events you mention. It is for protection from mind control which, in your case, may be too late.
You JFK conspiracy nuts?????????????????????
You believe the government issued report? Oh my!
Tin foil supplies are running low. Know your tin foil.
really pissed off now...but just try and take away their Mountain Dew and pork rinds
"Why the frantic effort to obscure this reality? Because they know the ideological and associative distance between far-right extremists and mainstream conservatives has shrunk dramatically over the past 10 years. They dread the consequences of what will happen when the real ugliness starts to break out."
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/81/250027568_4...
(Watch out, there's a sailor man after you with a can of spinach and your name's on it!)
"
Funny how Hannity and Limbaugh calls the progressives the far left wing liberials, but can't accept being labeled as the far right wingers because the close association to word "the far right extremist". They get too upset being labeled to close to it.
these people do NOT realize for the most part they're being had/taken advantage of. there are just an informal militia for wallStreet/(r) party. same old chatter from the right and wallStreet...socialism...take
your guns away. this is alittle grassroots prep to fight healthCare reform. they will call it "socialized medicine".......anti-government chatter. i don't know this for sure but i doubt many in this demographics
can talk more than 2 minutes regarding the economy/financial crisis. what we have here is a lot of black and white thinkers. the right/fox have done their group studies they know these people inside and out.
look out there's a "chemTRAIL".....GRAB your gun(s) and bible.
the elite's favourite MO to control the masses. Glad to see it is performing as well now as it did over 2000 years ago when the Romans came up with the term.
here in NJ. Thier conspiracy change was because they talked about attacking a government installation...only talk.
How is this different from what these A-holes are saying?
Somebody help me here.
I don't blame the morons at the gun show, they are after all, morons. But these hate-mongers on FOX and the AM radio certainly have blood on their hands for promoting the false idea that "Obama is coming to get you guns". The ironic thing is that their paranoia, leading to armed shoot outs with authorities, may in fact get some of their precious arms banned. A self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will.
That is one of the most scary videos I've seen in quite a while. These idiots are the result of the daily hate talk that poisons America's radio and TV airwaves. Just the fact that bozos such as these are legally permitted to own guns should be a crime in itself.
That kooky Weiner Savage:
"...keep in it your house and not worry so much that you will use it to kill yourself ..."
whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
... and it looks like if you cut your own mullet you can save enough $$ to go to gun shows ...
Why is an average citizen allowed to buy a gun called a "sniper rifle"? These are not well regulated militias purchasing these sniper rifles.
snip·er (snī'pər) n.
1) A skilled military shooter detailed to spot and pick off enemy soldiers from a concealed place.
2) One who shoots at other people from a concealed place.
You appear to believe that citizens are "allowed" to purchase certain firearms. This is not the case; free governments do not make "allowances" for general behaviour. Citizens are free to purchase any firearm that is not restricted by law. In the case of firearms that you would classify as "sniper rifles", which can refer to nearly any moderate or high caliber hunting rifle, there exists no rational justification for any prohibition, thus citizens who are not federally prohibited from purchasing firearms are not barred from obtaining such firearms.
That these individuals are not 'well regulated militias' is entirely irrelevant.
I believe there are not elephants nor rhinos anywhere in the continental USA, unless you hunt @ Zoos which may be an issue.
.50 caliber rifles are occasionally used for long-distance hunting, though more frequently they are used for competitive target shooting, though such a hobby is limited to those with a certain amount of disposable income given the high cost of both the firearms and the ammunition.
That was the point flying over your head at supersonic speeds.
Additionally, a "point" within a statement, even had yours possessed one, is not an actual tangible or physical object. As such, such a concept is incapable of flight at any speed.
The initial inquiry addressed the sale of "sniper rifles", which is a term that can and often is applied to any rifle possessing an attached scope. Your inquiry specifically addressed .50 caliber rifles, which is only a subset of the numerous firearms that may be classified as "sniper rifles". Unless your "point" was to change the subject, your statement did not address mine.
We're reaching mach 5 sir, I don't know if she will be able to hold!
You have provided no meaningful response to my statements.
your arguments by intellectually dishonest nitpicking are any better?
If anything, I wasted less bandwidth than you... making the same amount of points.
To what "intellectually dishonest nitpicking" do you refer? moonsha posed an inquiry regarding an "allowance" of civilians to purchase "sniper rifles", and I responded directly to that inquiry. It would appear that, since then, you have chosen to alter the subject of discussion while attacking me for not addressing an inquiry not made by moonsha.
intellectual dishonesty?
Well, moonsha's point was that there is a very specific use for a sniper rifle. You went off trying to shield behind such noble uses as "competition shooting" or "hunting"
Where in reality, those may be some very very rare corner cases of application. Heck you could have also said that someone may have used a sniper rifle to fix their roof, and yet... that is hardly the main intended application target (pun intended) for such sniper rifles.
Especially, when the video that started this thread shows some douche selling an easily concealed system for a .50 cal sniper rifle. Easy concealment among urban populations would be the last of the considerations for people interested in competition shooting or hunting. Don't you think?
But by all means, tap dance your way with any other nitpick...
I proveded a response to that inquiry by noting a common civilian usage of firearms frequently classified as "sniper rifles". I later clarified an additional use, with respect to .50 caliber "sniper rifles", as being recreational target shooting.
Your suggestion that hunting and recreational target shooting are "very rare corner cases" rather than the most common use of such firearms by civilians is wholly unsubstantiated.
As there exists no evidence that .50 caliber rifles of any make are commonly criminally misused, your speculation with respect to "easy concealment among urban populations" has no bearing upon actual reality.
These guys guzzle a few sick packs, then try to decide who has the bigger dick (by shooting firearms) out on the back 40.
I think, secretly, some of them would rather unzip, but that wouldn't be cool.
Discharging a firearm does not, in any way, relate to the size of a "dick". Additionally, this would be wholly inapplicable to female shooters.
Your speculation that such shooters would "rather unzip" does not appear to have any actual basis in reality.
Don't be so parochial.
That's Freudian, but not all shrinks are Freudian.
Is that what you think these
guysmorons are doing: high end sport shooting at private clubs?Your referring to such shooters as "morons" constitutes an ad hominem attack that has no justification. I confess that I do not know what individuals who spend, at minimum, $3000 on a firearm that is chambered for ammunition costing, at minimum, $2 per round, however I am aware of no reports of rampant criminal misuse of such firearms, thus if these individuals are not engaging in recreational shooting, then it is likely that they are not using the firearms at all. So long as their usage -- or lack thereof -- is not criminal and causes no harm to others, it is of no concern to any other party.
Ad hominems are not random insults, but rather questioning, usually without basis, whether the opposition has a personal stake in the outcome of the debate.
I should clarify. Ad hominems are meant to disrupt debate by questioning the other side's character. Such would be an undisclosed vested interest in the outcome. Such blatant uses lately have been: "Why do you hate America? We have to support our troops (by implication the other side doesn't). You support this because you're anti-family, or anti-God, or anti-patriotic.
It can take the more subtle forms of implication, innuendo and even just tone of voice. A good example of the latter would be Marc Anthony's speech in Julius Cesare's funeral, " (For Brutus is an honourable man; So are they all; all honourable men)", when he was clearly being ironic, but not in the actual wording.
However, to be persnickity that wasn't a debate but an oratory.
Look at my comment:
Wed, 04/29/2009 - 12:32
What took you so long?
With reflexes like that even a gun couldn't help you.
It does not appear to relate to my previous statement.
Someone just got out of Debate Team Practice! We're all very impressed.
It's written down not only in the clause in question, but precedes the keep and bear portion. If one part's irrelevant so's the other.
Is it just me or are all the videos on C&L (not just this one) starting and stoping so much that you can't hardly watch them anymore?
This video is embedded so I am not sure there is much that can be done about it. As for the video clips posted by C&L, the videos work better when I click on the Windows Media icon to view rather clicking on the play icon in the picture.
Thanks, I've gone to that too. I liked the little guy's head moving as a marker but just can't stand the starting and stopping.
If there is a download icon, I use that. Otherwise it's start and stop. Very annoying. Been that way since they "improved" the site.
they want us to try to take their guns. they want the conflict as does the right/evangelicals and wallStreet.
the right has such an identity crisis they need to get something going. obama is NOT falling for it. you can't reason with these people it's all or nothing no nuancing anything. you mention controlling assault weapons/mexican drug cartel it automatically goes to taking everyone's gun away.
...that certain Democratic party members and officials have given some degree of justification to concerns expressed by these individuals. This justification can then be used to claim credibility on other, more extreme and far less likely scenarios such as predictions of "FEMA internment camps".
When members of Congress, and the United States Attorney General, speak favourable of an "assault weapons ban" -- that is, a ban on firearms based solely upon cosmetic characteristics of a subset of a class of the least commonly criminally misused firearm in the United States -- they lend credibility to suggestions that Democrats are seeking firearms prohibitions. The rationale is that because an "assault weapons ban" has no actual rational basis, there exists no reason to believe that future firearms restrictions and prohibitions, also without rational basis, will be pursued in the future. Additionally, many concerns regarding speculation -- which, at present, is wholly unfounded -- of future ammunition regulation can be traced to a proposal made many years ago by Senator Edward Kennedy that would have essentially banned all rifle ammunition in existence.
Americans make me laugh.
Now you make me laugh!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy5THitqPBw
..I watched a portion of the ole' Johnny Carson tonight show the other day with Buddy Hackett telling a story about a duck. I was in tears!
Watch this thread degenerate into a 2nd amendment "gun-rights" thread in 4...3...2...1...
that discussion of the second amendment is degenerate.
Wow! You sure called that one!
Only in most of these cases, they would just be called "Education Camps". These folks obviously got "left behind".
let me see if I have this right.....all of these guns are legal, the gun shows are legal, talking this type of insurrection talk is legal....heck, these days even WATERBOARDING appears to be legal......but I'm breaking the law by sitting in my living room smoking a joint???!!
wtf?
..they're coming for ya!
that's just the Pizza delivery......been waiting all day for him to show up.....no, wait....maybe only 30 minutes....seems like all day tho'
i was wrong...it wasn't Pizza but rather the Jehovahs Witnesses.
Did you know they run like heck if you answer the door naked???
You might want to find a robe before he shows up or your munchies will find no relief.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTx9WMsxLLM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXv8CPPPG7g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZjNXq1U5Os
More and more each day, we hear people like Michelle Bachman inciting conservatives to stock up on guns and ammo and launch the revolution against Obama. Will they really do it?
It wouldn’t be the first time. The first rightwing attempt to overthrow the government was driven by an alliance of big business and army veterans. The Liberty League consisted of very rich men in the 1930s who loathed FDR. They included leaders from DuPont, GM, EF Hutton, General Foods, GM, Montgomery Ward, JP Morgan, the Hearst newspapers, Lehigh University, Princeton, Yale, U.S. Steel, Standard Oil (Exxon), Chase National Bank, Goodyear, Birdseye Foods, Colgate, Heinz, Mutual Life...and Prescott Bush. Some Democratic leaders belonged. The group was so powerful that even New York Times gave them dozens of positive front-page stories. Prefiguring today’s rightwingers, they screeched that FDR’s policies betokened "a trend toward Fascist control," and “the end of democracy." Their aim was to use WWI veterans to overthrow FDR so the fatcats could put their own man in. Their first choice to lead the charge was Douglas MacArthur, but the veterans hated him because he had crushed the Bonus Army march a year or two earlier, so they turned instead to another general, Smedley Butler, who (luckily for us all) had the good sense to blow the whistle on these loons in Congress.
The dilemma for any “revolutionary” terror group (or any other criminal enterprise) is how big the group gets. Too small, and they have no chance of setting up a national organization and taking over the country. Too big, and the law can infiltrate it, recruit its members as informants, and track its members to figure out who is connected to whom. Once the FBI has your group on a big wall chart with pictures and lines, you’re toast. Even before Oklahoma and 911, the FBI was watching these people. The Klan was successfully infiltrated under COINTELPRO, and eventually lost the Michael Donald case and the Jordan Gruver case. The Order, modeled on The Turner Diaries (the Bible of the loony right), was broken up under RICO. The neo-Nazis were blocked, in court, from marching in Skokie. Aryan Nations lost the Keenan suit and split up. The White Aryan Resistance lost the Mulugeta Shaw case. The Michigan Militia simply fell apart after Oklahoma, while the Indiana Militia hung on by distancing itself from the real kooks. Some of these guys actually had to get help from the hated ACLU to defend them.
[Edited. Bandwidth is expensive. You may not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You may link to them. Please limit excerpts to 3 paragraphs. Thank you-Sitemonitor]
Continued at:
http://hellodollyllama.blogspot.com/2009/04/w...
Wrong bullets that penetrate vests can still be acquired and bought. The law has loopholes in it that the NRA fought for. Hence why you can still buy rifles that will shoot down a plane or penetrate a tank or an armored van.
Also have you never heard of conversion kits? Those Ak-47s can be converted to full automatic because the damn manufactorers knew that they could be easily made into automatic weapons. It doesn't require a gun smith to do. It could be done by a teenager who knows how to do a plane model.
Also have you never heard of bump fire? You can get automatic firing of an Ak-47 threw that method.
Also guess what the bullets shot by your supposed hunting rifle obliterate the target meaning there is nothing left to take home to eat or mount.
I do not understand what is meant by "wrong bullets", however any handgun ammunition capable of penetrating Type-II police body armour is restricted by federal law, and is not available to civilians. I am unaware of any "loophole", whether lobbied for by the National Rifle Association or not, thus I would appreciate any clarification that you can provide on that matter.
I am unaware of any reports of planes being downed by any civilian rifles in the United States, nor am I aware of any tanks or armoured vans being "penetrated" from gunfire. Can you elaborate upon your assertion?
Your assertion regarding "conversion kits" is fundamentally incorrect. Any semi-automatic firearm that can easily be modified to fully automatic operation is considered to be, by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, to be legally equivalent to a fully automatic firearm and is regulated as such. Possession of such a firearm without federal permission is a felony meriting ten years in a federal prison. Any component that can be added to a semi-automatic firearm that enables fully automatic operation is also legally regulated as though the component itself were a fully automatic firearm. I am unaware of any reports of widespread illegal conversions from any law enforcement agency.
"Bump-firing" a rifle produces inconsistent and inaccurate results. I am unaware of any criminal reports of semi-automatic rifles being used in criminal acts through "bump-firing".
Can you identify the "bullets" that "obliterate" hunting targets? I am unaware of any such ammunition.
Login or Register to post comments.