At least, the conclusions they want to reach! Via Sister Toldjah:
ABC Retracts Shooter’s Tea Party Connection
By Daniel FosterEarlier this morning, ABC’s Brian Ross rushed to point out a possible connection between alleged Colorado shooter James Holmes and a “Jim Holmes” whose name appears on a local tea-party group web site. But now ABC is calling that report “incorrect”:
An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. Several other local residents with similar names were also contacted via social media by members of the public who mistook them for the suspect.
The suspect is said to be a 24-year-old former medical student, while the man with the similar name could be in his 50s.
Didn’t anybody learn from the Jared Lochner case not to jump to political conclusions until they had the actual facts?
______________________________________
Update: Karen, the Lonely Conservative, has more, and so far has a better discussion of the issues going on. So does Patterico and William Teach at The Pirate’s Cove.
The shooter in custody, Jim Holmes, contrary to early reports may not be a distant nephew of porn star Johnny “Wadd” Holmes. Jim’s mother can’t be reached for comment.
Official investigations are underway to determine if the guns used to kill and wound 6 dozen or so midnight movie fans in Colorado came from ATF gun running operations in Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico.
Baraq Obama is threatening to impose an Executive Privilege blanket of silence over the entire botched federal program is the heat reaches the Oval Office.
Here we have one more reason why the sale and trafficking of assault weapons should be illegal. We cannot raise taxes because of Grover Norquist, and we cannot control gun sale and contribution because of Wayne LaPierre. Who the hell are these people, that we let them run our country, unelected?
These effen media clowns …
You are going to seriously negotiate with slandering dogs like this over how we shall live, and how much of the freedom we have inherited we shall be allowed to retain?
Between the liberals and their moral dysfunction on the one hand and the schizophrenics and their mental dysfunction who are allowed to run loose on the other, we have pretty well set up the conditions we are now experiencing.
WW:
Who the hell are these people, that we let them run our country, unelected?
The same ones as the appointed Obama czars, and the likes of EPA, the Federal Judges that get besmirched. They are all UNELECTED.
We know the killer’s name, and we know that he was a University of Colorado medical student. That tells us nothing about his politics or whether he was sane or not. He apparently had only one thing on his legal record, a speeding ticket, certainly nothing which would have disqualified him from buying firearms.
So far, I haven’t seen anything which indicates that he purchased his weapons illegally. Wagonwheel, of course, wants to take away everyone else’s constitutional rights because one person abused his; Wagonwheel wants to punish the innocent, because someone else was guilty.
WW complained:
They are private citizens with opinions, just like you are. There are a lot of other people who respect their opinions. If a political candidate sides with the NRA or takes the Norquist pledge, and his constituents don’t like it, they are free to vote against him.
“Who the hell are these people, that we let them run our country, unelected?”
So now they are running our country? Get a grip Wagonwheel. They’re American citizens with opinions, and those opinions have followers just like unions and ACORN have opinions and followers. Can’t you tell the difference between political influence and political power?
Bill Warner, a private investigator in Florida, asserts that James Holmes, the captured suspect in the Aurora murders, was a marcher in the Occupy Black Block anarchist wing of the Occupy movement. Supposedly, Mr Holmes is the masked marcher on the left, near the camera.
Your Editor will wait for more corroboration.
WW wrote (on another thread):
Actually, Colorado does have a few gun control laws. However, your Editor finds the notion that the state having very few gun control laws, “in the name of complying with the Second Amendment,” would be such a terrible thing in Wagonwheel’s mind. He is amused that a liberal like Perry would be so upset with a state trying to actually comply with the Constitution. Indeed, he finds it interesting that people who actually support the Constitution “make (him) sick,” but did not so describe his feelings about the shooter himself.
Mr Editor, there is no valid reason that I can think of why a citizen needs an assault rifle. That’s #1.
#2, I was repeating a report about Colorado lacking gun laws. Perhaps the reporter was referring to this, from you link:
That’s simply incredible, Mr Editor!
Here is the reaction of a Republican Representative from TX to this incident in Aurora.
Incredible more!
Wagonwheel wrote:
Well, that’s the Second Amendment for you: your right to keep and bear arms is not limited by whether others believe you have a need for such arms.
That’s complying with the Second Amendment for you! If you don’t like the Second Amendment, I’d suggest that you start an organization designed to pass a constitutional amendment to repeal it.
[...] Krugman’s thoughts on the matter before Krugman had a chance to write them down.Update 6: The First Street Journal linked – thank you.google_ad_client = "ca-pub-1395656889568144"; /* 300×250, created 8/11/08 [...]
“Here we have one more reason why the sale and trafficking of assault weapons should be illegal.”
Actually, here we have an example of how you don’t know what you’re talking about. I saw a photo of the weapon used lying on the ground and guess what Wagonwheel? It’s not an “assault weapon” it appears to be an AR-15 tactical carbine. That’s a civilian model of the M-16 but it is not fully automatic and this particular rifle appeared to have either a 20 or 30 round magazine, not the 100 round drum. And unlike the M-16′s I used, the civilian AR-15 uses a 5.56 cal. cartridge (.223) not the 7.62 I fired in battle. That’s a lot less stopping power. But none of that is the point, the point is it ain’t an assault weapon, it’s a close range ( up to 600 yards) carbine rifle. Matter of fact, the shotgun fits that profile more than the carbine. Now he also had one or two Glocks which could have been 9mm, .45 cal., or more. I don’t know if he employed them in the attack.
I realize when a liberal sees a Big Black Gun he immediately thinks it’s an assault weapon, cause they “look” threatening. The 9mm Glock would do more damage in those close quarters though.
But it illustrates why we cannot allow leftists to define the 2nd Ammendment debate. Because they don’t have a clue and would ban everything so as not to “miss” anything. A Thompson Sub-Machine gun, a BAR, a full auto M-16 and more are Assault weapons, the rest are carbines (rifles), that’s all no matter how “bad” they look.
And if you actually believe ” the sale and trafficking of assault weapons should be illegal” then I presume you’ll be voting for Romney since Obama and Holder are trafficers in assault weapons.
That Brian Ross is a piece of work though. That’s the second time the MSM tried to link the TeaParty with murderers. They really are slime. However, somehow they failed to mention the murders and rapes which actually occured at the Occupy rally. Then when you add that to their blatent attempt to suppress legitimate voters with dead people, pets and illegals the picture isn’t pretty. But what can we expect from a dysfunctional government which employs Maciavellian tactics like Fast & Furious to achieve it’s ends?
Didn’t anybody learn from the Jared Lochner case not to jump to political conclusions until they had the actual facts?
The MSM don’t need no stickin’ facts, they have an agenda and a quick deadline to meet. Agenda Trumps Facts anytime.
Oh please, Hoagie, give me a break!
Thus, you are making a difference without a difference, Hoagie. A weapon which can get 100 rounds off in a few seconds is an assault rifle, and not one a normal individual would take on a deer hunt! Again, there is no reason on god’s earth why any citizen should be permitted to own a weapon like the AR-15.
And to Mr Editor’s point, there are plenty of jurisdictions which ban assault weapons, and some which ban all weapons. Are they in violation of the Second Amendment in doing so? If they were, this issue would have been to the SCOTUS by now, and it would have been found Constitutional. This has not happened.
Colorado is wrong to continue to prohibit the banning of any weapon. In fact, they are out of step with now two very serious offenses with weapons in the wrong hands. Does Columbine ring a bell? Apparently it did not ring the bell of the Colorado legislators.
This man Holmes is alleged to have shot 71 people, killed 14 so far, in a matter of seconds. This is not an assault, Hoagie?
You better include your dear Bushie on that list, because he started that stupid program. And how many assault weapons did Bush send overseas, killing at least 100k civilians? How about that, Hoagie?
In the past decade, America has experienced about 9,500 murders per year. In countries like the UK, Germany, and Japan, which have less than 200 per year, according to Frank Lautenberg. You don’t think this discrepancy has anything to do with our lax gun laws, compared to strict gun laws in these other countries?
Admit it, America is a very violent nation, relatively speaking!
Wagonwheel says:
July 20, 2012 at 12:40
Here we have one more reason why the sale and trafficking of assault weapons should be illegal. We cannot raise taxes because of Grover Norquist, and we cannot control gun sale and contribution because of Wayne LaPierre. Who the hell are these people, that we let them run our country, unelected?
It’s interesting that the “Assault Rifle” similar to an AK-47 was used. But go to a number of other gun manufacturers that make “deer” and other medium size game rifles and hunt with semi-autos of the same caliber as the AK-47, the AR-15, the M-1 and M-14 and basically they operate the same way. It’s comparing Apples, to Apples. But the word “ASSAULT” sounds sinister. But rifles by Rueger, Remington and others would do the same damage. Calling “ASSAULT” weapons killing machines is like saying a fork and spoon made you fat.
The military has found out “Full Auto” of say an M-16 is useless in a tactical situation. Firing 20 rounds in full auto raises the the barrel while you fire. It’s now limited to three round bursts to be more effective.
“A weapon which can get 100 rounds off in a few seconds is an assault rifle, and not one a normal individual would take on a deer hunt!”
Wrong again Wagonwheel. A weapon which can get 100 rounds off in a few seconds could be an assualt rifle, an AR-15, though it looks sinister, is a semi-automatic carbine , not an assault weapon. Now guys like you can call it an assault weapon and you can call a Chevy a Cadillac but it don’t make it so. The Glock he carried has the ability to fire off 100 rounds in a minute too, is it an assault weapon? You leftists have a need to emotionalize everything to achieve your ends. Had the theatre not had a rule against law abiding citizens carrying on its property, perhaps another patron would have capped his worthless ass after a few shots. The fact they were all unarmed got them killed, not the type of weapon the killer used. You’re blaming the gun for the act of the man who squeezed the trigger. You leftists are always blame shifters, aren’t ya?
Yorkshire, I believe the switch now is single shot, three round burst and full auto. Now I haven’t fired a full auto in about 10 years but that’s what my LICENSED friend had then. But he also sported a drum magazine not a banana .
“In the past decade, America has experienced about 9,500 murders per year.”
How many are firearms related, and do they include self inflicted death, and do they include police killings and self defense killings in these stats?
“You don’t think this discrepancy has anything to do with our lax gun laws, compared to strict gun laws in these other countries?”
Don’t know, could be but I don’t think most states have “lax gun laws”. Do you think this discrepancy may also have to do with the vast and many different cultures here? Perhaps the violence portrayed on TV and at the movies here? Or the general disregard for life here biginning at conception? Perhaps if the left would put more value on human life there’d be fewer murders. Perhaps if the leftists in Hollywood would not be so obsessed with bloodshed kids wouldn’t be so influenced from rap music, to TV and movies to video games. You know Wagonwheel, garbage in-garbage out.
But blaming the hammer for a poorly constructed building is stupid. And a gun, like a hammer, is a tool.
“You better include your dear Bushie on that list, because he started that stupid program.”
Man, you keep gettin’ it wrong today Wagonwheel. Bush had a program called “Operation Gunrunner” which was discontinued. Obama and Holder are the murderers who own Fast and Furious. Admit it, Obama’s hands are bloody!
” And how many assault weapons did Bush send overseas, killing at least 100k civilians? How about that, Hoagie?”
I don’t know how many, do you? But I do know Obama’s still sending assault weapons overseas killing more civilians. Now he’s even using drones so he can kill more even faster than Bush did. Plus he’s sending them to Mexico to kill their civilians and even our own Boarder Guards. How about that, Wagonwheel?
Oh the joys of being a leftist in 2012. You get to defend a president who kills civilians in the Middle East, now Pakistan, and even hundreds if not thousands in our good neighbor, Mexico to the point of our U.S. citizen, Brian Terry. Then you can switch to defending his stellar performance on domestic economy with now 42 months of unemployment over 8% when he promised 6%, near zero GDP growth, manufacturing down, green energy boondoggels and money poured down the drain on his “bundlers”, a crushing National Debt, tens of millions homeless and on food stamps, children going hungry, no real energy policy and no hope in sight.
I got an idea, let’s blame it on somebody else. This guy has turned out to be exactly what every leftist before him was: great at the body count, not so good on the business end. I got it we’ll just use his own words, He didn’t build that-somebody else did. ( if it’s good enough for a businessman it’s good enough for Obama )
Bush had Wide Receiver, where they tagged the guns and could keep track of them electronically. And as soon as it appeared they would be at risk of losing track of the guns, the program ended. Wide Receiver did not lose track of guns, did not lose guns, did not result in the murders of hundreds of innocent people. Wide Receiver was also a joint operation with Mexico.
Gunrunner, which was the Obama Operation, part of the Obama Fast and Furious, did not tag the guns, did not even attempt to keep track of the guns, did not even let Mexico know about the thousands of guns Federal agents were shipping into Mexico via violent criminals. In fact, when lower level Federal agents wanted to keep surveillance on the guns and the people who had them, their superiors refused to allow it. And when they started moving to Mexico where our agents could no longer watch them, the lower people wanted to sweep in, arrest, and confiscate the guns. Their superiors refused to allow it, requiring that the guns vanish into the night and into Mexico.
Gun dealers were raising red flags about the straw purchases because the gun dealers, you know, were doing their best to obey the law and to not sell guns to criminals, but the Obama Department of Injustice refused to back down on their actions. The ATF, who was telling the gun dealers to go ahead and sell to the straw purchasers, also wanted to link Mexican deaths to the guns they were pushing into Mexico in order to write new, far more restrictive regulations on gun dealers, especially in the border states, despite the fact the gun dealers themselves didn’t want any part of what ATF was doing to arm the narco-terrorists.
When a particular gun dealer started raising a stink about what was happening, the Obama Department of Injustice decided it was time to do something, so they set about destroying their business and the lives of that family, and did its evil best to imprison the gun dealer family under trumped up charges.
No, what the Obama Department of Injustice was doing has no similarities to what the Bush Department of Justice was doing. At all.
Yorkshire wrote:
Further, setting an M-16 to “rock’n'roll” empties the magazine too quickly. According to an Army sharpshooter with whom I spoke 63 seconds ago, the maximum sized magazine for the M-16 holds thirty rounds.
Thanks for setting me straight on the Wide Reciever John Hitchcock. I knew Bush’ operaton was not F&F.
WW wrote:
WW made a typographical error, and should have written, “and it would have been found unConstitutional.” However, these cases do take time to work their way through the court system, and, to the dismay of those who would sacrifice our constitutional rights on the altar of “safety” and “public order,” the gun bans which have made it to the Supreme Court have been found to be unconstitutional, in District of Columbia v Heller, (2008) and McDonald v Chicago, (2010) The Heller case involved federal issues, since Washington DC is a federal enclave governed by federal law. At issue was DC’s complete ban on handguns, worked by the twisted method of making the possession of an unregistered firearm within the District a crime, and concomitantly prohibiting registration of handguns. Because Mr Heller agreed that being allowed to register, and thus legally possess, his handguns was a satisfactory outcome, the Court held, fairly narrowly, that while the Second Amendment required that weapons commonly chosen by law-abiding Americans be allowed to the public, the registration requirement itself was not overturned, nor was allowing the states to prohibit unusual weapons under United States v Miller, (1939) the Miller case referring to a sawed-off shotgun.
Heller referring solely to federal enclaves, led to the case of McDonald v Chicago. The majority held, for the first time, that the Second Amendment was “incorporated” by the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to the states. The Bill of Rights was not held as applicable to state action as early as 1833, in Barron v Baltimore, and the Slaughterhouse Cases decision in 1873 held that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not mean that the federal Bill of Rights was now incorporated to include state action. In McDonald, Justice Clarence Thomas alone held that the Slaughterhouse Cases rule should be overturned, and that the Second Amendment should be incorporated under the Privileges and Immunities Clause; had this been done, the entirety of the Bill of Rights would apply to the states; as it stands now, some provisions, notably the right to trial by jury in civil cases and the requirement for a grand jury to indict in state criminal cases have yet to be incorporated. Right now, the provisions of the first eight amendments which do apply to the states apply through selective incorporation through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion incorporated the Second Amendment in that manner.
Thank you Mr. Editor and your Army sharpshooter for the clarification. My memory is a little fuzzy and my goal was to press the buttons of the Liberal from Lewes, so I didn’t research anything I did it from memory. Guess that was a FAIL. My real point was just because a weapon has a high tech look, or is molded in evil black, or looks sinister and bad-ass does not mean it’s an “assault weapon”. But leftists will call anything an assault weapon with the goal of getting everything banned. That’s the dirty little secret. They really don’t want to ban assault weapons, they want to ban all weapons. If they manage to achieve an assault weapon ban then slowly but surely each and every weapon will be reclassified as an assault weapon till all we have left are muskets.
An interesting discussion here, which taught me a lot.
But no one has addressed my question about why civilians ahould be permitted to own and use a weapon like an AK-15. To me, it makes no sense. Moreover, various horrendous incidents in recent years, in which AK-15 rifles have been used, should send us a message: These weapons must be banned, nationwide.
And for all of you Second Amendment advocates, this is a case where our founders could not have envisioned our modern weapons, therefore it is outdated. Absolutists simply must give in on this point!
Then there is the statistic I raised about the huge number of murders in our country. To Hoagie’s question about how many are committed by gun, in 2005, of about 10,500 murders, 75% were by guns. Isn’t there a message here to which we should respond.
On the subject of our ATF Gunwalking Scandals, Fast and Furious under President Obama is the latest in a series of these programs begun in 2006 under President Bush Operation Wide Receiver. Thus, these flawed operations are the responsibilities of both Presidents. Wiki has a detailed summary of these Gunwalking Scandals.
The solution, of course, is to ban the sale of these AK-15 weapons, which was the predominant weapon used in these operations, which is exactly what our powerful gun lobby will not allow to happen. If you want to blame someone for the murder of agent Brian Terry, blame the NRA, who can also be blamed for allowing the purchase of many of the weapons used in our unbelievably high number of murders committed by our citizens.
WW wrote:
Justice Hugo Black, appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt, long regarded as one of the most liberal members of the Supreme Court, wrote:
In Adamson v California, (1947) he wrote:
If you believe the Second Amendment to be outdated, start a Repeal the Second Amendment movement! You won’t be alone: a google search for repeal the second amendment returned 2,790,000 results. But it is wholly disingenuous to pretend that the words of the Second Amendment are not absolute in their terms.
Love that “ABC = Always Blame Conservatives.” There’s also PBS: Perry’s Beliefs Suck.
Wagonwheel says:
July 21, 2012 at 12:44
An interesting discussion here, which taught me a lot.
But no one has addressed my question about why civilians ahould be permitted to own and use a weapon like an AK-
1547. To me, it makes no sense. Moreover, various horrendous incidents in recent years, in which AK-1547 rifles have been used, should send us a message: These weapons must be banned, nationwide.An AK-47, or the civilian AR-15 (Military M-16) are relatively the same in operation as a Deer Hunting Rifle. The reality is the M-16 will wound more soldiers on the battlefield than what it replaced, the M-14. The M-16 has a 5.54mm round and smaller cartridge than the M-14 which has a 7.62mm round and a larger cartridge. The M-16 wounds more than it kills. The reason is the enemy can repair a wounded soldier and the aim is to keep the enemy busy with wounded soldiers which slows them down. If they are dead, they can stay where they fell.
If that were the case, then we’d all own single shot, muzzle loading flintlocks, since that was the latest gun technology when the Constitution was written.
I smell a lie right there. Smith & Wesson makes pistols, not rifles. I think the manufacturer they meant was Colt.
Perry is so ignorant he can’t tell the difference between an AK-47 (an old Soviet design) and an AR-15, which is based on the American M-16
And Perry, who claims the Founders and Framers could not want us to have weapons like the AR-15 and AK-47, has previously admitted that the Founders and Framers wanted us to be armed well enough to overthrow a tyrannical US government, should one come into being.
So, Perry understands the Founders and Framers wanted us to have that kind of firepower but doesn’t believe the Founders and Framers wanted us to have that kind of firepower. I gotta ask, does Perry’s left brain cell ever talk to his right brain cell, or are his two brain cells always separated by that massive wall of ignorance and cognitive dissonance?
The Tree of Liberty must needs be watered by the flowing blood of Patriots, else it will surely die.
Perry, why do you tell such obvious lies? John H has explained to you, several times, the difference between the Bush gun program vs Fast & Furious, which was a purely Obama/Holder affait.
Anyone unwilling or unable to grasp the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon doesn’t know enough about the topic of guns to offer an opinion worth reading. You might just as well discuss algebra with the neighborhood cat.
Here’s a hint: Looks can be deceiving, guns are like books, you can’t judge one by the cover.
Rope:
Here’s a hint: Looks can be deceiving, guns are like books, you can’t judge one by the cover.
But some do judge them by how they were indoctrinated. Sorta like that fork and spoon made me fat. Or, my mind is made up, now don’t confuse me with facts.
Holmes was apparently having trouble getting girls. Twitchy reported the following: (emphasis added)
Eric, S&W makes an AR-15. Here’s a write-up from a sales site. (emphasis added)
The rifle looks like a scary assault weapon but it functions exactly like any other semi-automatic: you pull the trigger and it shoots once, ejects the spent cartridge, and loads a fresh cartridge from an internal or external magazine. You pull the trigger again and it shoots and loads itself again. Which differs from fully automatic and select-fire (assault) weapons where one pull of the trigger results in more than one shot. It’s the difference between automatic loading and automatic firing.
Keep in mind that the S&W AR-15, like other civilian versions of modern military rifles, is restricted by BATF regulations to be incapable of being modified to fully automatic fire. Military parts won’t fit civilian rifles.
So, other than the appearance of the rifle, the S&W AR-15 functions like every other semi-automatic sold on the US civilian market for hunting and target shooting for the last 100 years. However, modern semi-automatics which look like assault weapons feature external magazines which (as noted above) have significant capacities, 30 rounds in this case).
It is this feature which allows for many more shots between reloading operations that will eventually become the focus of opponents of 2nd Amendment rights. But, they’ll have to get beyond looks and learn the difference between semi-auto and full auto first.
“If you want to blame someone for the murder of agent Brian Terry, blame the NRA,…”
Did the NRA give these weapons to drug gangs in Mexico? NO! Obama did, Eric Holder did. Again, you leftists want to blame others for your own failings. You still refuse to take responsability for the murderous acts of your Democrat leaders. Obama killed Brian Terry, not the NRA! The NRA had nothing to do with Fast & Furious, it was ALL Obama.
“The rifle looks like a scary assault weapon but it functions exactly like any other semi-automatic….”
But that’s the object ropelight, they want to ban all weapons and have no idea what the difference is between them. Liberals are as ignorant of weaponry as they are of economics. Why we would let them make decisions on either eludes me. Just look at the nonsense Wagonwheel writes about the AR-15. He’s never even held an AR-15 let alone fired one! It’s another situation where liberals inject themselves into a subject they know nothing about.
Wagonwheel wrote:
Well, why don’t you just go ahead and blame James Madison:
“Shall not be infringed” means just that, “shall not be infringed.” The National Rifle Association is an interest group which wants to see the Second Amendment upheld, but it can only be upheld because it actually exists.
Hoagie, I had to go back and actually read Perry’s comments to see if he made the statement you quoted @11:45. He did @12:44 on the 21st. In fact his entire comment is so wrongheaded as to constitute confirmation that he’s a taco short of a combination plate.
It isn’t the NRA that refuses to secure our borders, it’s elected politicians in both parties. Nor did the NRA send Brian Terry to his death armed with bean bags, Janet Napolitano’s DHS did that.
Nor was it the NRA that strong-armed retail gun dealers to sell hundreds of rifles to straw-buyers, including the one that killed Brian Terry, Eric Holder’s ATF did that. The gun shop owners attempted to questioned the unconscionable practice, but ATF instructed them to continue to sell rifles and pistols to the same straw-buyers and weapons traffickers.
It wasn’t the NRA that covered-up the fact that Brian Terry was killed with a rifle purchased with US taxpayer’s money handed over to Mexican criminals by Eric Holder’s FBI.
Nor was it the NRA that failed to inform Mexican political leaders or law enforcement agencies that Obama’s Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Justice were responsible for running thousands of guns across the border and into the blood stained hands of Mexican drug cartels.
It wasn’t the NRA who retaliated against ATF whistle-blowers attempting to expose Obama Administration illegal gun running.
Nor was it the NRA who lied to a Congressional investigating committee charged with oversight responsibilities.
Nor was it the NRA who claimed Executive Privilege to obstruct the Congressional investigation, Obama committed that crime.
Nor was it the NRA voted in Contempt of Congress for refusing to release subpoenaed documents. That was Eric Holder.
Attempting to blame the NRA for Brian Terry’s murder is well beyond the bounds of either logic or reason, it’s contrary to the facts, and it reveals a desperately shameless and thoroughly dishonest effort to shift the blame and excuse the actual perpetrators.
Really? Doesn’t Colt make the M-16, on which the AR-15 is based? Besides, I thought S&W only made handguns. Looks like I was mistaken.
Question for Dana, Hoagie, and all others familiar with military equipment: The Aurora shooter allegedly used a 100 round drum for his AR-15. Why don’t out troops use these as well, it would give them a lot more firepower than the standard issue 20 or 30 round clips.
Au Contraire, Mr Editor. Obama himself has admitted his failure to tell us a believable story. Examples abound: He told us that although he sat in Reverend Wright’s so-called church for 20 years he never heard the animated hate monger preach racism or religious bigotry. But, recordings proved that hate and bigotry were the cornerstones of Reverend Wrong’s black theology.
Then, Obama told us that he’d cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Although his first term isn’t over yet, reports of cuts in the deficit have been less than convincing.
Then he told us that his Stimulus plan would keep unemployment under 8% and we all know that promise is a debt unpaid.
This could go on and on, but it’s raining pitchforks here in SW Florida, so I’ll close, before I lose power, with the observation that nearly everything Obama has done is wrong for America, wrong for democracy, and wrong for humanity.
The enemies of peace and freedom celebrate Obama and seek his reelection. American patriots eagerly prepare for his early retirement.
The devil made him do it!
ropelight says:
July 22, 2012 at 13:03
Hoagie, I had to go back and actually read Perry’s comments to see if he made the statement you quoted @11:45. He did @12:44 on the 21st. In fact his …………………
…………………………………….. refusing to release subpoenaed documents. That was Eric Holder.
Attempting to blame the NRA for Brian Terry’s murder is well beyond the bounds of either logic or reason, it’s contrary to the facts, and it reveals a desperately shameless and thoroughly dishonest effort to shift the blame and excuse the actual perpetrators.
Like nature abhors a vacuum, Marxists and all the branches of that abhor facts and rely on emotions. Just like Brian Ross in a fact free report instinctively needed a conservative bogeyman and that had to be the TEA Party. Damn the facts, charge ahead and satisfy those who hate.
Eric, it’s stopped raining so I can respond, however Hoagie is better informed. Our special force troops do use the drum magazine when called for, but regular troops don’t generally use it because they burn through too much ammo too quickly and the fully loaded drum is just too damn heavy to lug around.
The reason we use aluminum and plastic in combat rifle manufacture is to make it lightweight, easier to carry, and more maneuverable in tight spaces. A big heavy drum is cumbersome and counter productive.
Troops have to carry ammo and it’s heavy. The standard ammo load-out is more effectively used with caution. You run out of bullets and ya got a problem. But, for quick action raids immediate overwhelming fire power comes in so handy that the extra weight is justified.
So, while it makes sense for regular troops to husband their limited resources and to stay light and mobile, it’s just as sensible for special forces to have the option to give ‘um hell and let the bad guys know it’s a good idea to keep their damn heads down.
Ropelight wrote:
If assault weapons were banned, ropelight, like they once were, including the AK-15, it would be much less likely that they would be found in the hands of Americans to pass them on to the Mexican drug cartel.
Mr Editor, you absolutely refuse to admit that times have changed since the Second Amendment was written, as in this case in terms of firepower. Therefore, the application of the Second Amendment must also change. This absolutist interpretation of the Constitution is absurd, unrelated to reality.
Moreover, regarding whether the AK-15 is an assault weapon or not, is a matter only of politics. If one is a winger, it is not an assault weapon. For those who wrote the assault weapon ban, no longer in effect, the AK-15 was defined as an assault weapon, as it was included in the ban.
We have just witnessed the AK-15, in the hands of one James Holmes, used his AK-15 as an assault weapon, didn’t we?
Finally, the AK-15 can be configured as an automatic weapon.
Are we going to continue to argue over nomenclature, or are we going to ban these weapons of mass destruction once and for all?
Finally, the AK-15 can be configured as an automatic weapon.
That would be a very interesting concept to see. Like to read how it’s done. Ooops, there are no guns called the AK-15 so, that is impossible to configure.
The problem is, if given free rein, your types would ban everything down to spitball shooters. And I don’t thing that anyone who refers to an “AK-15″ has any business having an intelligent discussion about guns.
Seriously, Perry, if you had your say, just what types of guns could a private citizen own? My own suspicion is your answer would be “None”.
WW wrote:
If the Second Amendment must be changed, then change it! The Framers were wise enough to provide the mechanism by which the Constitution can be amended. You, naturally, don’t want to do that, but would rather twist the words to mean something other than what they say.
Suppose, some commenter grandly began pronouncing on the wise-men of the past by making reference to the philosopher “Pluto”, and spoke as if the doctrines of “Pluto” and Aristotle were the same stuff.
Would you take such a person seriously?
Well, maybe you would. You did after all, take a clown from BF Oceania who confused the name of the actor John Mills, with the 19th century utilitarian John Stuart Mill, to be quite a profound commenter.
So let’s try referencing an area you might actually know something about for an illustration.
If your one of students could not differentiate between an acid and a base, or claimed that an electron had the same atomic weight as a proton, or didn’t understand the concept of specific heat as opposed to temperature, or speed as opposed to velocity, or a line as opposed to a vector, would you have shrugged and said, “Why argue over nomenclature?”.
If you don’t understand the difference between a self-loading rifle and a machine gun, why should your comments be given any greater credence?
Speaking of which. Look up the term “atomic weight”. Its use appears to have become a matter of some contention even as regards elements, reference to mass being preferred.
As to its use with regard to fundamental particles, which are no longer considered even fundamental, the use of the term would be even more objectionable, 1980′s high school physics texts notwithstanding.
A proton has by terminological stipulation, “mass”. An electron, none or virtually none. Have either “weight”?
Does nomenclature then, mean nothing?
My mistake, Yorkshire, but you knew what you meant! And yes, an AR-15 can be cofigured as an automatic firing weapon.
Mr Editor, you know as well as I that an amending the Constitution regarding the Second Amendment is not going to happen. Therefore reason/judgment has to be applied to the interpretation of those words in terms of today’s context. You and I have been through this same hassle regarding the First Amendment, in which case you have not been able to support, in all cases, an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment.
Strictly speaking, I think it is accurate to say that no word/words can be said to have an absolute meaning, because the context is always part of the picture leading to meaning and understanding. In law, this is exactly why we have judges!
And you know this, how, exactly? I mean, it’s not as if you have demonstrated a compelling knowledge of firearms.
And commenting on DNW’s point, the same is true in science. Yes, there is a difference between mass and weight, but each value is dependent upon both context (what particle or object we are dealing with) and measurement precision (having to do with measurement uncertainties).
From my comment yesterday @12:28
Perry, you failed to answer my question about what guns you would allow private citizens to own. My suspicion is your answer would be – none.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
[edit] History
The AR-15 is based on the 7.62 mm AR-10, designed by Eugene Stoner, Robert Fremont, and L. James Sullivan of the Fairchild ArmaLite corporation.[9] The AR-15 was developed as a lighter, 5.56 mm version of the AR-10. The “AR” in AR-15 comes from the ArmaLite name. ArmaLite’s AR-1, AR-5, and some subsequent models were bolt action rifles, the AR-7 a semiautomatic survival rifle and there are shotguns and pistols whose model numbers include the “AR” prefix
1973 Colt AR-15 SP1 rifle with ‘slab side’ upper receiver (lacking raised boss around magazine release button) and original Colt 20 round box magazine
ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt in 1959. After a tour by Colt of the Far East, the first sale of AR-15s were made to Malaysia on 30 September 1959 with Colt’s manufacture of their first 300 AR-15s in December 1959.[10] Colt marketed the AR-15 rifle to various military services around the world, including the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps. The AR-15 was eventually adopted by the United States military under the designation M16. However, Colt continued to use the AR-15 trademark for its semi-automatic variants (AR-15, AR-15A2) which were marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers. The original AR-15 was a very lightweight weapon, weighing less than 6 pounds with empty magazine, though later heavy-barrel versions of the civilian AR-15 can weigh upwards of 8.5 lbs.[11]
Today the AR-15 and its variations are manufactured by many companies and have captured the affection of civilian shooters and police forces around the world due to their accuracy and modularity. (Please refer to the M16 for more history on the development and evolution of the AR-15 and derivatives.)
The trademark “AR15″ or “AR-15″ is registered to Colt Industries, which maintains that the term should only be used to refer to their products. Other AR-15 manufacturers make AR-15 clones marketed under separate designations, although colloquially these are sometimes referred to by the term AR-15.
Some notable features of the AR-15 include:
Aircraft grade forged 7075-T6 aluminum receiver is lightweight, highly corrosion-resistant, and easy to machine
Modular design allows the use of numerous accessories such as after market sights, vertical forward grips, lighting systems, night vision devices, laser targeting devices, muzzle brakes/flash hiders, sound suppressors, bipods, etc. and makes repair easier
Straight-line stock design eliminates the fulcrum created by traditional bent stocks, reducing muzzle climb.
Small caliber, accurate, light weight, high velocity round (.223/5.56x45mm)
Easily adapted to fire numerous other rounds
Front sight adjustable for elevation
Rear sight adjustable for windage (most models) and elevation (some models)
Wide array of optical aiming devices available in addition to or as replacements of iron sights
direct impingement gas system (as designed) with short or long stroke gas piston, or direct blowback operating systems available
Synthetic pistol grip and butt stock that do not swell or splinter in adverse conditions (regulated in some states)
30-round capacity magazine available where legal
Ergonomic design that makes the charging handle, selector switch (safety), magazine release, and bolt catch assembly easy to access.
4 MOA Accuracy as a MILSPEC standard
AR-15 sight picture
Semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally different from the full automatic M-16, although nearly identical in external appearance. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable. This was done to satisfy BATF requirements that civilian weapons may not be easily convertible to full-automatic. Despite this, through use of a “Drop In Auto Sear” or “lightning-link,” conversion to full automatic is very straightforward (sometimes requiring slight modification to the bolt carrier).[12][13] Such modifications, unless using registered and transferable parts made prior to May 19, 1986, are illegal. (The Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986 has redefined a machinegun to include individual components where a semiautomatic firearm can be converted to full-automatic based on a 1981 BATF ruling on machinegun parts.)
Automatic variants have a three-position rotating selective fire switch, allowing the operator to select between three modes: safe, semi-automatic, and either automatic or three round burst, depending on model. Civilian AR-15 models do not have three-round burst or automatic settings on the fire selector. In semi-automatic only variants, the selector only rotates between safe and semi-automatic. Due to this, weapons modified to full automatic using a lightning-link are capable of full automatic fire only—unless a special full automatic fire select mechanism and modified selector-switch is substituted.[12]
[edit] Operating mechanism
Diagram of an M16 rifle, firing
The main mechanism of operation for the rifle is known as direct gas impingement. Gas is tapped from the barrel as the bullet moves past a gas port located above the rifle’s front sight base. The gas rushes into the port and down a gas tube, located above the barrel, which runs from the front sight base into the AR-15′s upper receiver. Here, the gas tube protrudes into a “gas key” (bolt carrier key) which accepts the gas and funnels it into the bolt carrier.
The bolt and bolt carrier together form a piston, which is caused to expand as the cavity in the bolt carrier fills with high pressure gas. The bolt is locked into the barrel extension, so this expansion forces the bolt carrier backward a short distance in line with the stock of the rifle to first unlock the bolt. As the bolt carrier moves toward the butt of the gun, the bolt cam pin, riding in a slot on the bolt carrier, forces the bolt to turn and unlock from the barrel extension. (The gas system only serves to unlock the bolt while the projectile has long exited the barrel). Once the bolt is fully unlocked it begins its rearward movement along with the bolt carrier. The bolt’s rearward motion extracts the empty cartridge case from the chamber, and as soon as the neck of the case clears the barrel extension, the bolt’s spring-loaded ejector forces it out the ejection port in the side of the upper receiver. The bolt is much heavier than the projectile, and along with the recoil-spring pressure inside the stock buffer-tube performs the cartridge ejection function and chambers the following cartridge.
Behind the bolt carrier is a plastic or metal buffer which rests in line with a return spring that pushes the bolt carrier back toward the chamber. A groove machined into the upper receiver traps the cam pin and prevents it and the bolt from rotating into a closed position. The bolt’s locking lugs then push a fresh round from the magazine which is guided by feed ramps into the chamber. As the bolt’s locking lugs move past the barrel extension, the cam pin is allowed to twist into a pocket milled into the upper receiver. This twisting action follows the groove cut into the carrier and forces the bolt to twist and “lock” into the barrel’s unique extension.
The Constitution has been amended when the public was in favor of it. “Prohibition” is one example. But that is not enough for Perry.
So much for the meaning of “law” in a leftist mouth.
This just brings to the forefront a continuing theme we have repeatedly seen play out as liberals flounderingly try and fail to coherently reason about rights and obligations.
For all their jabber about social conventions and compacts, about relative morality, validation by majority rule, and the like, liberals just cannot seem to wrap their analytically feeble minds around the fundamental and basic concept of voluntary association as it exists in what is probably one of the few actual political examples of a deliberately and contingently constructed polity in the world: our own.
In connection with societies where people have organically lived and interbred like one big unconscious family for millennia, liberals insistently refer to the arbitrariness and conventionality of social arrangements as if that were an accurate description of the formation of the national polities that grew out of them.
But, in the US they reverse the claim.
Here, where our larger peaceable associations are made morally incumbent only through the deliberate and conscious connections established in an explicit document, and through no other morally binding secular means, liberals talk as if they could somehow abolish or subvert the only predicate – a constitutional and formal one – that gives their own association and their own lives relative political legitimacy, and yet somehow still reserve for themselves the very kind of intrinsic human social value which they usually mock as a fiction.
They ordinarily claim that the only limits on what some people may legitimately do to others, are found in formal legal conventions which may be changed at the stroke of a pen.
Yet they act as though they can subvert the very documents which give them the only protection and consideration they are humanly entitled to [per their own system of evaluation], and still retain some kind of substantive value or right of association, which again, and according to the principles of their own worldview, does not really exist.
Is it wrong to cast out a liberal and deprive it of its property, if we fashion the basic laws to allow it?
If so, why?
[...] Our good Democrat from Delaware has boiled down the essence of liberal thought and tactics. He wrote: If the Second Amendment must be changed, then change it! The Framers were wise enough to provide the mechanism by which the Constitution can be amended. You, naturally, don’t want to do that, but would rather twist the words to mean something other than what they say. (The Editor) [...]
No, Eric, my answer would not be “none”. But I am strongly in favor of banning assault rifles, including the AR-15, as they once were banned, which was thrown out in 2004 during Cheney/Bush.
DNW, politically you are the equivalent of a fundamentalist Christian like John Hancock, who insists that if one does not chose to believe in their codified mythologies, then they are condemned for eternity.
Your absolutism regarding our Constitution is identical to the Bible, created by man and forever subject to interpretation in context. No man, or group of men, can create a document which is absolute, independent of context, which again is why we have judges and courts. You mean to tell me that you do not understand this truth? I always thought you were an intelligent and scholarly individual. You are, but you left your common sense behind the door.
Yorkshire, instead of our quarreling over nomenclature, please explain to me why any citizen needs an AR-15.
Explain to me why my rights should be subject to your consent and approval?
“…… please explain to me why any citizen needs an AR-15.”
To hunt and target shoot. To defend his home, property and family. As a last line of defense against tyranny. Now the reason I would need an AR-15 is because a Thompson Sub-machine Gun is too expensive. Like the major in Nam who asked me why I wore a .45 as my side arm. I told him because they didn’t make a .46.
Wagonwheel says:
July 23, 2012 at 21:55
“The AR-15 is based on the 7.62 mm AR-10, designed by Eugene Stoner, Robert Fremont, and L. James Sullivan of the Fairchild ArmaLite corporation.[9] The AR-15 was developed as a lighter, 5.56 mm version of the AR-10.”
Yorkshire, instead of our quarreling over nomenclature, please explain to me why any citizen needs an AR-15.
Simple, the Second Amendment says you can. You don’t have to supply a reason other than it is your right to spend your money freely on something the Constitution says you can. No other reason is needed.
add: And as a US Citizen, I have that Constitutional right and no other reason is needed.
Again, your knowledge of guns and gun laws is inadequate. The law expired in 2004, as it was designed to. Bush had nothing to do with it.
But, back to my question: what guns would you allow US citizens to own?
You seem hung up on the term “Absolutist”. The word I would use instead is “Objective”, meaning something that isn’t subject to mere whim or opinion. The alternative is a Constitution that is made out of mush, that can be twisted this way and that until it doesn’t mean anything at all. Is that what you want, or is what you’re REALLY after is a Constitution that can only be twisted one way – your way?
IOW, PAP lied … again.
“Is it wrong to cast out a liberal and deprive it of its property, if we fashion the basic laws to allow it?
If so, why?”
PAP is now mixing up one of the contributors here with the Declaration’s large writing specialist.
A mind is a terrible thing to lose.
This one I’m willing to write off to gross ignorance. Anyone who thinks an AK-15 is a gun probably things the Chevy Corvair is a boat.
An excellent question. I would keep asking it until Perry finally provides an answer.
An excellent question that should be asked of all left wingers about all of their endeavours.