Jan 31 2013
assault weapon propaganda
Assault Weapons: Seeing through the Propaganda (by Kelsey Farnham)
The term assault weapon has been tossed around so liberally during the recent 2nd Amendment debate. It has in turn caused many Americans to encompass a misguided view of what legislation is really proposing.
In 1994 Congress passed a Federal assault weapons ban. It defined an assault weapon as “a semi-automatic rifle able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, grenade launcher.” These so called “dangerous features” and accessories are merely cosmetics. The weapons without these features function no differently than the rifles and shotguns in common use for over 100 years.
The misunderstanding of the term began when the liberal media realized that they could take advantage of the fact that most of the public could not tell the difference between true assault weapons ( Fully Automatic Firearms which are regulated under the National Firearms Act), and their Semi-Automatic look-alikes. Semi-automatics and all other firearms, such as bolt-actions, pump-actions, lever-actions, revolvers, double-barreled shotguns, and single-shot firearms, fire only once when the trigger is pulled. Media programs go so far as to show video footage of fully-automatic machine guns being fired while their reporters talk about legislation related to semi-automatic firearms. Therefore, misleading people into thinking that fully-automatic machine guns are the types of firearms covered by semi-automatic “assault weapon” legislation. “Assault Weapon” propaganda is laced with photographs of fully-automatic machine guns.
The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machineguns versus semi-automatic assault weapons only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these guns. However, television networks and print publications began instilling this sense of fear and confusion in the public by showing fully-automatic military firearms, while talking about semi-automatics. Naturally, because so many Americans automatically believe that what they see in the media as a fair, impartial, and true reporting of the facts, there is now a distorted view of what an assault weapon really is. Unfortunately, in 1994, the media’s plan worked; and the “Assault Weapons Ban” passed.
The term itself is a pure anti-gun propaganda term. It was advanced by and for the anti-gun movement in the late 1970′s and popularized in the early 1980′s. “Assault weapon” is essentially just an excessive, redundant phrase. A weapon, by definition, is a tool used to harm or destroy an enemy, prey, equipment, or structure. All of which sounds like “assault” to me. Colonel Mustard, in the billiard room, with the candlestick, should be accused just as readily for using an “assault weapon” as someone with an AR-15. Let’s get a clue, people.
As the American public, it’s our responsibility to educate ourselves better on issues as important as the 2nd Amendment. Let’s see through all the propaganda and see the truth.
“Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions.” Proverbs 18:2
SOURCES:
1. Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2012/12/are-we-are-our-own-worst-enemies-at-times/#ixzz2JNgJ0qpB
2. What are assault weapons?: http://www.gunbanfacts.com/get_the_facts/history.aspx
3. Assault Weapons: Propaganda: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi- bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/98375
4. Nobody Really Knows What an “Assault Rifle” is, So How Are We Supposed to Ban Them? http://www.policymic.com/articles/21191/nobody-really-knows-what-an-assault-rifle-is-so-how-are-we-supposed-to-ban-them
Feb 02, 2013 @ 12:54:43
“Why is the gun industry the only industry protected under a single amendment in the constitution?”
This, of course, is the problem that afflicts all liberals (moderate or otherwise). They do not understand what’s going on in The Constitution, apparently because, as one of their scribes put it, “it’s like over a hundred years old.”
It’s actually hard to believe that someone could get through school, even in this age, and believe that the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights protects, by design, any certain industry.
But, of course, the liberal (Bobby, in this case) likely is confused by the nature of those rights, i. e. their divine origin. Most of us understand that the rights enshrined in the US Constitution are those that are God-given. Liberals, unfortunately, operate with little if any understanding of God. That, in this case, is reflected in the extremely ironic comment in Bobby’s post: “You have to admit…the victims of this violence have just as much rights as the person purchasing the guns….” Sure, we’d all admit that. But I’ll bet that we’d diverge on the question when the “victims of violence” are unborn, eh, Bobby?
Ahh, and then the talk of compromise. The definition of “compromise”, for Bobby and his ilk always is one of three things: higher taxes, less liberty, or both (usually both). Why not try this, Bobby? Why not fix your perceived problem in the manner provided by the very Constitution that you believe to be the problem? Amend it. It tells you right in there how to do it.
Come up with a list of guns and accessories that you don’t like, and offer up a Constitutional amendment that would ban them. You surely could get 2/3 of Congress and 2/3 of the states to agree that, “the victims of this violence have just as much rights as the person purchasing the guns to protect their families”, right?
Or, Bobby, is it just easier to usurp our rights and call it legal? Apparently so.
Feb 02, 2013 @ 17:05:50
Jeeze Robby… are you capable of actually debating the argument without bringing into it every other thing that you have fear or hatred over other human beings?
Can you calm down and discuss any topic as an adult?
It’s people like you, Robby, that make the discussion so damn hard.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not as you may think, God Given, they were written by men, who mind you – of many things owned slaves when they were written. Which we later had a war over and amended the very laws you claim were given down by God… And actually, Robby, the discussion Bobby was starting to have is actually what you recommend he do – amend those articles.
Also, saying that a “liberal” has no understanding of God is just about the most vitriolic and asinine thing i’ve read on this blog of stupidity in a long time. It’s just a crass insult.
I’m saddened of the thought that people like you are likely out there in the world breeding and teaching your children the same small thoughts.
Feb 04, 2013 @ 11:44:12
Doug, you are living proof that when someone throws a stick into a yard full of dogs, the hit one yelps. You’re yelping, Dougie.
You may benefits from reading again what I wrote (may, i repeat, inasmuch as it is pretty clear to begin with and yet you missed it). I wrote not that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are God-given (they’re not the Ten Commandments, oh, for you and Bobby, those are the laws of God delivered on Mt. Sinai from which we, in large part, derive our laws) but that the rights–the rights, Dougie–are God-given. The reason I wrote that, aside from the truth of it, is that it is what the document says, which means that the folks writing the document believed it also.
I don’t recall a war whereby the the rights contained in the first ten amendments (those aren’t laws, by the way, but I’m willing to help you out on this since you’re struggling), but I’m sure that you’ll inform us all which one that was.
As to your charge of “crass insult”, see the first sentence above.
I’m sad that you’re sad. Actually, I’m not, but I am sad that ‘m paying for it.
Have a Great Day!!
Feb 04, 2013 @ 22:23:01
You are f….. up man. Really… Go help us all because of a..hats like you.
What exactly are you paying for again?
Feb 04, 2013 @ 22:47:55
Gentlemen…
First of all…I am encouraged by your passion…but I think the point of this post and conversation is loosing it’s focus. What is bad…this is taking place on the Senator’s blog. Let’s get real here.
Second of all, I may not agree with everything that the Senator supports…but I believe in having a constructive conversation surrounding the issues. I am bothered that this discussion has turned into name calling and language un-becoming of public discussion. I am sure that the Senator does not appreciate the direction this discussion has taken.
Finally…I ask you this question. Would you use the same approach in a public forum (with your children and mother present) as you are now?
This issue is a serious issue, serious enough that we need good constructive discussion, thoughtful research, and clear direction. Name calling and subjective religious references take us no-where…other that the same ole place we have been struggling…divisive communication.
Please breath, step back from the keyboard, and think about the real issues here other than breaking down the one thing that keeps us moving forward…human decency.
Respectfully keeping it real!
Bobby
Feb 05, 2013 @ 12:44:50
Okay, dad. Let’s keep it real. Here’s the real issue. If you want to abrogate rights identified in the US Constitution, then the document itself gives you a mechanism. So, what’s the list of “arms” that you’ll be placing in the proposed amendment to circumscribe Amendment #2?
Jan 31, 2013 @ 20:05:00
Senator…
This is going to be one of the hardest, toughest issues (next to health care reform) that our state and country will face. You have to admite, the propaganda is flowing from all sides. From what you term as the liberal media all the way from the NRA. There are so many mixed messages flowing around especially from congressional leadership as yourself. “Truth” is in the eye of the beholder.
I am a gun owner, a moderate liberal, and a protector of my families civil liberties…but this where I am challenged when it comes to the pro-gun lobby. It is not a one-sized fits all. Why is the gun industry the only industry protected under a single amendment in the constitution? Did the framers really write it with this debate in mind, especially given how we are experiencing gun violence in schools today. Trust me…as a journalist…I was at Conyers, GA…I covered Columbine…I have been shot at in the streets of Phoenix from after school shoot-outs and as the first to fly over Katrina in a helicopter the day after…listening to the pings hit the blades from those who wanted to get out of New Orleans. I know what it means to be in the line of fire…and I have seen the impact it has on families.
I know it is more than gun control…we need to get to the heart of the issue and put aside the civil liberty, patriot argument. You have to admit…the victims of this violence have just as much rights as the person purchasing the guns to protect their families, the single moms purchasing guns to protect their homes…etc.
But the last thought I leave with you…what about the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act”? Why have this and protect gun companies from prosecution? Why? Where is the accountability or will the 2nd Amendment be a one size fits all…in your viewpoint? There has to be some compromise here.
Bobby
Anderson, SC
Feb 02, 2013 @ 16:57:07
Bobby,
That is one of the best points of discussion i’ve seen so far in this argument. It’s hard to talke about issues like this when either side is going to take an extremist point of view, again on either side of the argument.
Like you I hope we can discuss this and other tough issues without fear, hate or anger and just get something done.
Feb 05, 2013 @ 07:15:47
Hey kids, Y’all are free to post anything you want, but please keep it family friendly, KLB