Gun ban LIES by L.A. Police

[cvfd1399 0]

Was watching an interview by Paula Zahn on CNN. She was interviewing the head of the LA police department about him wanting the renewal ban on assault weapons(which comes up monday). His comment was that "weapons capable of firing 3-5 shots with the single pull of the triger should not be allowed on the streets" FUCKING helloooooooo....... That is not a assault weapon, that is a MACHINE GUN!!! Now all the gun haters out there that thought this is a ban on 'Ugly guns" now think this is about fully automatic weapons?!!!
Here is the link to part of the written story, but his comment is on the video? anyone know how to get that??

CNN sucks ass

[Jib 0]

Doesn't it give you confidence that the chief of law enforcement in a huge city doesn't have a clue about firearm laws?

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[cvfd1399 0]

With the time so close to the vote I wonder if it was that, or a planned "oops" error on his part. I would not be supprised comming from california. I spewed my taco bell all over the couch when he said that, and no one corrected him.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Doesn't it give you confidence that the chief of law enforcement in a huge city doesn't have a clue about firearm laws?

I'll bet you a cup of coffee that the chief of law enforcement knows exactly what he's talking about.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Jib 0]

Quote

I'll bet you a cup of coffee that the chief of law enforcement knows exactly what he's talking about.

Moron or liar: either way, he's a shit bag.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[BartsDaddy 5]

Well I hate to inform you , But that is the tactics here in Kalifornia. Lie decieve do what ever they can to get the guns off the street. I hate it but that is what they do. It does not matter here in Kalifornia whether the AWB sunsets or not seeing as how Kalifornia has a law that mirrors the AWB that does not sunset. so here it does not matter one way or another. In there effort to ban 50 calibers here the L.A. city council and police chiefs had a Barret semi-auto 50 cal with a ten shot detachable magazine at a city council meeting showing it saying this is what they wanted to get off the streets. The trouble is that weapon is allready illeagel to own in Kalifornia. And everyone of them except the law enforcment were in violation of a felony just holding that weapon at the meeting. But that does not matter to them as long as they can spread thier dissinformation they are happy. And unfortunatly it works cause the averrage person does not smell thier bullshit they spread.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Doesn't it give you confidence that the chief of law enforcement in a huge city doesn't have a clue about firearm laws?

He knows what the fuck he is doing when he parrots those lies. Don't be naive.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

His comment was that "weapons capable of firing 3-5 shots with the single pull of the triger should not be allowed on the streets"

Yes, and children should not be left unsupervised near swimming pools, and you should open soda bottles with the cap aimed away from your face.

Now, chief, please comment on the assault weapons ban.

(You fucking mendacious prick!)

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

It does not matter here in Kalifornia whether the AWB sunsets or not seeing as how Kalifornia has a law that mirrors the AWB that does not sunset.

Actually, I believe it was Kalifornia's ban that served as the model for the rest of the country.

It didn't work there, so it's no surprise that it's a failure throughout the country.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Actually, I believe it was Kalifornia's ban that served as the model for the rest of the country.

It didn't work there, so it's no surprise that it's a failure throughout the country.

Question:

Is there ANYONE here on the forum who believes in the ban, feels it has done noticeable, logically and factually demonstrable good, and feels like explaining why they feel so?

(I understand that you realize you'll be jumped on and called to defend the position, but please, we need to understand the opposition's view on this, and up til now it's just been a preaching to the choir.)

Thanks,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mnischalke 0]

Because nobody want's more lethal guns on the street spraying bullets.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Because nobody want's more lethal guns on the street spraying bullets.

Yes, those fully automatic bullet sprayers will be legal again soon. How ridiculous!

. . =(_8^(1)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Is there ANYONE here on the forum who believes in the ban, feels it has done noticeable, logically and factually demonstrable good, and feels like explaining why they feel so?

A San Francisco cop was killed earlier in the year by a punk with an AK47. Of course this lead to a cry for the important of gun bans, including the one that "prevented" punks like this from buying AK47s for the past decade.

And sad to say, given the events as I understand it, the ban itself may have been the reason why he fired on the cop, as possession could get him arrested. The LEO was not in the process of arresting him when he opened fire.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

A San Francisco cop was killed earlier in the year by a punk with an AK47.

Which brings up my predictions for what we'll see in the news as soon as the gun ban expires on Monday:

1) Every gun death committed by someone with any firearm remotely resembling a so-called "assault weapon", will be blamed on Pres. Bush for failing to push to renew the ban.

2) Anti-gun organizations will sponsor studies which, through bogus scientific methods such as cherry-picking samples, will conclude that deaths from so-called "assault weapons" have skyrocketed since the end of the ban.

3) The NRA will be personally held to blame for anyone killed with a so-called "assault weapon".

Mark my words...

It should only take a week or two for these predictions to start coming true.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Which brings up my predictions for what we'll see in the news as soon as the gun ban expires on Monday:

3) The NRA will be personally held to blame for anyone killed with a so-called "assault weapon".

It's a damned good thing that if and when the anti-gunners "see" a rise in gun crime and get angry at pro-gunners, pro-gunners have guns to defend themselves with, and anti-gunners have no guns to hurt the pro-gunners with.

Sometimes things just work out beautifully.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Kennedy 0]

You left out the part were gun rights people refute the antigun side's claims with federal facts, statistics, and studies that leads the fruitloops to getting so much more angry.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

I found this interesting little blurb on the AP today:

Quote

National police organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Fraternal Order of Police all support the renewal of the ban. President Bush has said he would sign such a bill if Congress passed it.

I understand wanting to shoot for sport and fun (and I look forward to finally getting a chance to use one on the range), but it cracks me up when people claim lack of personal safety by not being able to own an AK-47. A good friend of mine is a huge pro-gun person, last night he claimed that he will be safer now. I asked him to give me one example in the last ten years when he needed an assualt weapon for his safety or anyone else's.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I found this interesting little blurb on the AP today:

Quote

National police organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Fraternal Order of Police all support the renewal of the ban. President Bush has said he would sign such a bill if Congress passed it.

I understand wanting to shoot for sport and fun (and I look forward to finally getting a chance to use one on the range), but it cracks me up when people claim lack of personal safety by not being able to own an AK-47. A good friend of mine is a huge pro-gun person, last night he claimed that he will be safer now. I asked him to give me one example in the last ten years when he needed an assualt weapon for his safety or anyone else's.

And it would crack me up if they passed a law that said you can't use your First Amendment freedoms to speak to any group larger than 1,000 people. When was the last time you needed to address a group that large? Couldn't you accomplish the same goal by speaking to 10 friends and asking them to speak to ten more, etc.?

When was the last time you "needed" to invoke your Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination? Or your protection against unreasonable search and seizure?

Who ever said that you don't protect the rights that you don't have a daily need to exercise?

And when we can clearly demonstrate that the AK-47 that you don't see the need to protect ownership of doesn't fire any differently from other guns that are not banned, how do you defend the ban?

What if your friend were talking about fire extinguishers? What if he had gone 10 years without a fire extinguisher, but never had a fire, and then he went out and bought an extinguisher and a smoke detector, and proclaimed that he and his family were safer now? Would you still laugh at him, and assert that he is not safer now simply because he had never had to use a fire extinguisher in the past 10 years when he didn't have one?

No. You'd have to say that he got lucky to not have needed it when he didn't have it, and now he is better protected for the future.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

And it would crack me up if they passed a law that said you can't use your First Amendment freedoms to speak to any group larger than 1,000 people.

Been there, done that, got the tshirt. It's amazing when you stand on a stage in front of a few thousand people with a mic in your hand. And I've addressed groups in the size of hundreds quite a few times. From radio, to leading protests, to leading orientation at a college, etc....I've done more than my fair share of public speaking (not bad for a guy that has a slight fear of public speaking, huh?)

Quote

What if your friend were talking about fire extinguishers?

Let me guess? Fire extinguishers don't kill people, people kill people?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

And it would crack me up if they passed a law that said you can't use your First Amendment freedoms to speak to any group larger than 1,000 people.

Been there, done that, got the tshirt. It's amazing when you stand on a stage in front of a few thousand people with a mic in your hand. And I've addressed groups in the size of hundreds quite a few times. From radio, to leading protests, to leading orientation at a college, etc....I've done more than my fair share of public speaking (not bad for a guy that has a slight fear of public speaking, huh?)

Quote

What if your friend were talking about fire extinguishers?

Let me guess? Fire extinguishers don't kill people, people kill people?

Go ahead, ignore and ridicule the salient points I made in my post. You'll just be one more person whose nonsense I don't feel the need to respond to. I made legitimate points there, but they were apparently too much for you to deal with seriously so you hid behind sarcasm.

Oh well.

-Jeffrey
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

I've made it a habit to stay out of the gun debates and I broke one of my own guidlines by posting in here today.

My opinons on guns won't ever match up with yours. I've had a family member murdered by gunshot and I've lost a couple friends from High School from gunshot wounds as well. I also was stuck in the middle of a riot in Chicago and had to hide in a basement to avoid random gun shots. I have a too many friends that are cops that have been shot and a good friend was just shot at last week while he was on duty. I've also lost a few other people in my life due to guns like one of my teachers.

I have friends that use these as reasons to keep a gun in their house, and I see it otherwise. They are both opinions, neither one is wrong.

I understand why you are fighting for gun rights, and you probably believe in them as much as I do on freedom of speech and assembly. You can compare the two because they are rights given to us by our forefathers - but in the end they are apple and oranges to me.

Like I said - I like guns for sport only, not hunting or anything else. I go to the range to shoot targets and accuracy. I'm not some fanatic like others on here and I wouldn't lose sleep if I never fired a gun again in my life. In fact, I would be happy to see all guns go away for good....but that isn't anything that will happen soon.

I'm not happy to hear about the sunset on this ban, and I don't even bother to listen to the NRA rhetoric on why its a good thing. There isn't much that could ever change my opinon on that.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I understand why you are fighting for gun rights, and you probably believe in them as much as I do on freedom of speech and assembly. You can compare the two because they are rights given to us by our forefathers - but in the end they are apple and oranges to me.

Technically, they are rights given to us by God (or by virtue of being human, if you don't believe in God, as I don't) -- and acknowledged by our forefathers. Just as the Constitution does not grant, but rather protects rights that are already ours to begin with, neither was it the purview of the founders to be "giving" us anything, except maybe a legacy of ardently protecting our inalienable rights.

Quote

I'm not happy to hear about the sunset on this ban, and I don't even bother to listen to the NRA rhetoric on why its a good thing. There isn't much that could ever change my opinon on that.

Well, I think it's incongruous that you divorce yourself from the discussion just after you plant a seed of debate, and then claim that you don't care much for or about guns, BUT, you are displeased with the sunsetting of a law you don't seem to really understand -- said lack of understanding probably largely due to the fact that you "don't even bother to listen to the NRA rhetoric on why the expiration is a good thing. Apparently, you DO listen to the HCI and VPC rhetoric on why the expirationis a BAD thing, otherwise you'd have said you have NO opinion on the expiration. Why would you feel the expiration is bad unless you believed the continuation of the ban would accomplish some GOOD? If you "listened to the NRA rhetoric" or even just looked at this website full of facts about the "ban" you would understand why the so-called ban was a piece of useless fluff legislation and really should expire, as it has now done.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I'm not happy to hear about the sunset on this ban, and I don't even bother to listen to the NRA rhetoric on why its a good thing. There isn't much that could ever change my opinon on that.

It does not surprise me that you don't feel anything could change your opinion, when you freely admit to closing your mind to any information that could cause you to do so.

Do you suppose that without going to any credible pro-gun information sources (NRA is chief among them), you'll get a fair and objective view of pros and cons of the ban?

If you believe that the ban is good, apparently you agree with Handgun Control Inc.'s rhetoric. Why are you open to listening to theirs, but not the NRA's? Perhaps you're afraid that their line of argument will be that much more rational and compelling than HCI's? It gets a little scary to have new information challenge and change your worldview, but believe me, it's better than continuing on in ignorance. And I can't find any other word for it when you freely admit to screening out the other side's viewpoints as you do.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

To me, an invention that causes almost nothing but pain and destruction is not a virtue or whatever you want to call it. It's a fun toy, its an added bonus to have one, but it isn't something that is needed to get thru the day. I'm sure you have heard all the arguments on the interpretation of what our forefathers meant.

I said I made a mistake by entering this discussion.

I made my choices on my own. I didn't need any web links to tell me what to think, I've seen what guns really do on the street and that is where my opinion started. However, I did quite a few hour long shows in college that aired on public radio about the gun debate. I've interviewed both sides, I heard the arguments from both sides. I thought it out and made my choice. It was an informed decision.

That choice isn't going to change. I've challenged my views many times and I have friends that push the issue with me. Why is it any worse for me to be that strong and stubborn about wanting the ban as opposed to those that are steadfast about needing to own an assault weapon. Don't forget, its more than a debate topic for me, its something that has hit close to home. No stats on either side is gonna sway me on that.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

My opinons on guns won't ever match up with yours. I've had a family member murdered by gunshot and I've lost a couple friends from High School from gunshot wounds as well. I also was stuck in the middle of a riot in Chicago and had to hide in a basement to avoid random gun shots. I have a too many friends that are cops that have been shot and a good friend was just shot at last week while he was on duty. I've also lost a few other people in my life due to guns like one of my teachers.

I am sorry you lost people you knew, but i am more sorry you blame an inanimate object rather than the person(s) who actually caused the deaths.

Quote

In fact, I would be happy to see all guns go away for good....but that isn't anything that will happen soon.

Until someone creates and sprinkles some really strong magical fairy dust around the world, that will never happen.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.