Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: CNN attacks "assault rifles"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    I'llBold the parts that I take the most issue with... this is bad reporting at it's worst.



    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/05/cops.guns/index.html

    WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (CNN) -- The war on the streets is escalating. As gangs and other criminals pack more firepower, police departments say they find themselves in an arms race.







    Sgt. Laurie Pfeil practices shooting a semiautomatic weapon in Palm Beach County, Florida.



    1 of 3



    var CNN_ArticleChanger = new CNN_imageChanger('cnnImgChngr','/2007/US/11/05/cops.guns/imgChng/p1-0.init.exclude.html',2,1);

    //CNN.imageChanger.load('cnnImgChngr','imgChng/p1-0.exclude.html');


    The officers say they need to level the playing field to survive. And so, on a bright October day about a dozen Palm Beach County sheriff's deputies brought out their big guns at the local firing range.

    Rifles crackled. Shell casings flew. Bullets sailed at 3,200 feet per second through paper targets set up a football field's length away.

    The sharpshooters weren't training for a SWAT team. These were the deputies who patrol the streets and roads from the glittery Gold Coast to the swamps of the Everglades. Watch cops practice firing the big guns »

    The fatal shooting in September of a Miami-Dade police officer by a man using an assault weapon put all South Florida police departments on edge. Several other officers were wounded by the gunfire.

    "It's not nice we have to arm ourselves like the soldiers in Iraq," said Sgt. Laurie Pfeil, who supervises a sheriff's road patrol in Palm Beach County and is now certified to carry a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle on the job. It's the civilian version of the military's M-16 used by U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

    "We are like soldiers. It is a war, " says Sgt Pfeil.

    Across the country, at least 62 police officers have been gunned down this year -- a record pace, said Robert Tessaro, the associate director for law enforcement relations for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

    As a result, the Brady organization supports police officers arming themselves with high-powered weapons "to protect themselves and their communities," he said.

    "We're having more than one officer shot and killed a week. It's just outrageous that officers are being targeted," he said. "It's something I think all Americans should be outraged about."

    He lays the blame squarely on lawmakers who allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004.

    Designed to be fired from the hip, assault rifles such as the AK-47 can spray at a rate of up to 600 rounds a minute in full automatic mode. It is the weapon of choice for guerillas and gangsters.

    Cops prefer to squeeze off single shots in semiautomatic mode because it makes for more accurate shooting. Some semiautomatic weapon's can fire with pinpoint accuracy from as far as 100 yards away. The magazines used by law enforcement typically carry 20 or 30 rounds, adding to the ability to better respond under fire.

    There's no doubt that urban street warfare, aided by a proliferation of cheap automatic weapons, has come even to Palm Beach County, once high society's vacation mecca and a retirement destination for northern snowbirds.

    Assault weapons have been used to kill eight people and wound 25 here over the last two years. Authorities estimate there are about 160 gangs who boast around 7000 members.

    "They don't have .38s anymore. They have AK-47s. ...They have automatic weapons now," said Sgt. Pfeil.

    So the Palm Beach Sheriff's office, like many others across the county, is training and arming everyone on the force with semiautomatic assault weapons. Many officers say it's about time.

    "It's different now. It's shootings on a weekly basis. Ten years ago, that just didn't happen," said Pfeil. "They don't get out and run from us anymore. They stop, and they're shooting at us."

    Miami's police department also is in the process of arming every officer with an assault rifle.

    "It's a little bit embarrassing that we're engaged in this, but what is the alternative?" said Miami police Chief John Timoney. He said gangs, in particular, are getting their hands on high-powered weapons with apparent ease.

    "The streets of South Florida are being flooded by AK-47s and assault weapons from old Soviet bloc countries. It's driven the price down, making the availability greater," said Chief Timoney.

    The Miami police department evidence room has seized AK-47s, AR-15s and an assortment of other automatic and semiautomatic weapons piled on shelves from floor to ceiling.

    Chief Timoney says he started noticing an increase since the federal assault weapon ban lapsed in 2004. Since then, he says homicides in the city of Miami involving assault weapons have been up -- 18 percent last year and 20 percent this year.

    The Miami Police Department said 15 of its 79 homicides last year involved assault weapons, up from the year before. So far this year, 12 of 60 killings have involved the high-powered arms.

    Tessaro said he recently attended a conference for the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Among the crime scene tape, squad cars, and other law enforcement gear offered for sale was the latest in high-powered assault weapons.

    But it takes time and money to arm everyone. In the case of Palm Beach Sheriff's office, about one-third of its deputies carry assault weapons. It could take a year to get everyone equipped.

    Some officers aren't waiting.

    Palm Beach Sheriff's deputy Carl Martin bought his own AR-15 and passed the required training.

    When his department offered him one of their weapons, he gave it up to someone else who was on the waiting list. "Because there's not enough to go around," he explained

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------



    OK, so here are the parts of this article that I take issue with, not to mention the overall tone of the article, trying to make it seem like there is no difference between semi auto ak47s and full auto ak47s.
    certified to carry a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle
    Trying to make it sound like you have to be some kind of special citizen like a police officer to be able to have a semiautomatic military style rifle.

    We are like soldiers. It is a war

    More of this "we're basically soldiers" attitude from police officers. Civil rights are going out the window in the name of "officer safety". This attitude and dressing like soldiers does not make them seem like they are there for public safety, but to be the strong arm of government.
    He lays the blame squarely on lawmakers who allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004.
    Typical of the brady bunch to blame anyone and anything, rather than blame the criminal. And if they are getting ILLEGAL machineguns, like the article suggests, then the LEGALLY purchased weapons no longer covered by the ban are not the problem.
    Designed to be fired from the hip, assault rifles such as the AK-47 can spray at a rate of up to 600 rounds a minute in full automatic mode. It is the weapon of choice for guerillas and gangsters.
    This is setting a deffinition for AK47 that the rest of the article doesn't use. The rest of the article goes on to bash MY ak47 that only fires one shot per trigger pull. This is a rediculous and outright attack.

    The magazines used by law enforcement typically carry 20 or 30 rounds

    This is suggesting that only law enforcement should be allowed full capacity magazines.
    aided by a proliferation of cheap automatic weapons
    ILLEGAL, why can't they use the word illegal? There is no such thing as legal cheap automatic weapons. A legalautomatic ak47 in crappy shape would cost $20,000
    AK-47s, AR-15s and an assortment of other automatic and semiautomatic weapons
    Again, not differentiating between legal semi-automatics and illegal (or legal even) full automatics. This whole article is trying to blur the line.

    bought his own AR-15

    Wait, I thought the article was suggesting that it was bad for him to be able to go out and buy one of these "assault rifles" as a regular citizen?



    This article is rediculous and I am very disappointed with CNN. It was the cover story last night.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    That is why it is known by a number of pejorative epithets that veary mostly by their depth of disdain. Remember, IIRC, it was founded by Mistah Jane Fonda. From her politics it is known by some as Communist NN or Clinton NN.

    Better to eschew pre-digested pablum news altogether.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Sigh.



    For once, I'm at a loss for words.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    The anti-gun group Violence Policy Center admits that the Brady gun ban did nothing:


    "Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing "post-ban" assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts. The VPC estimates that more than one million assault weapons have been manufactured since the ban's passage in 1994.

    The sad truth is that mere renewal would have done little to stop this flood of assault weapons. Conversely, the end of the ban only makes official what was already known: assault weapons are readily available in America. The only difference is that the arbitrary distinction between pre- and post-ban assault weapons is now gone.

    America's police and public deserve an effective assault weapons ban that truly bans all assault weapons."

    http://www.vpc.org/press/0409aw.htm


    And from the DOJ:
    An unpublished 2004 study commissioned by the DOJ found that "Assault weapons (AW) were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the assault weapons used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban


    And here is the new horror show they're trying to pass:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault...on_Act_of_2007


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    nathan wrote:
    And here is the new horror show they're trying to pass:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault...on_Act_of_2007
    You know what I call that?

    A shopping list.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    nathan wrote:
    And here is the new horror show they're trying to pass:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault...on_Act_of_2007
    You know what I call that?

    A shopping list.
    Yup.

    This gets me...

    A firearm that, based on the design is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes determined by the Attorney General. In making said determination, there will be a presumption that any firearm procured by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes.

    So if they buy .22's for training it becomes an assault weapon? Would pretty much rule out any decent weapon, mossberg pump shotguns, remington 700's, just about every common handgun, etc...

    Damn liberals.

    Hmmm, am partial to the idea of a dragonuv, especially in 7.62x54r, that is a sweet round.

    Steve

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    I didn't buy my underfolder AK47 for "sporting purposes", and I'll freely admit it. I bought it to defend the people I care about from tyrany, and to preserve the constitution, should that sad day ever come. I have a handgun for home defense. I have a military-style rifle in case the time comes for brave men to act as brave men. It is my duty as an American to have and be competent with a modern weapon, because someday we're going to have to fight to regain our freedoms. When you sacrifice liberty for any temporary reason, you will have to fight for every inch of that freedom to get it back.

    We will never be given back the freedoms we have sacrificed. Freedom isn't free, and we're going to find that out the hard way. You don't justgive freedom away, because then it has to be purchased back, and the only currency that will purchase freedom is the blood of patriots. The government will never say "the terrorists have lost, so we don't need to spy on you anymore, you can have your right to privacy back". This will never happen.

    I hope I'm wrong, and I hope I never need my rifle, but don't fool yourself into thinking I have it for "sporting purposes". The 2nd amendment isn't about "sporting". It's about preventing tyrany.

  8. #8
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    nathan wrote:
    The anti-gun group Violence Policy Center admits that the Brady gun ban did nothing:


    "Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing "post-ban" assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts. The VPC estimates that more than one million assault weapons have been manufactured since the ban's passage in 1994.

    The sad truth is that mere renewal would have done little to stop this flood of assault weapons. Conversely, the end of the ban only makes official what was already known: assault weapons are readily available in America. The only difference is that the arbitrary distinction between pre- and post-ban assault weapons is now gone.

    America's police and public deserve an effective assault weapons ban that truly bans all assault weapons."

    http://www.vpc.org/press/0409aw.htm


    And from the DOJ:
    An unpublished 2004 study commissioned by the DOJ found that "Assault weapons (AW) were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the assault weapons used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban


    And here is the new horror show they're trying to pass:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault...on_Act_of_2007

    Yeah, the "ban" waspretty benign. It basically "banned"a few features.

    It was a sham.It was feel-good legislation with no substantive effect on theclass of guns mentioned in it or the people who bought them.

    The NRA did a prettygood job on that one,successfully lobbying the rightpeople to make the "ban" sound ferocious but actually be toothless. Such is the game of modern politics....it is better to look good than to solve good.

    Any future gun rights regulation will be similarly ineffective, even under a Clinton administration. We have the NRA to thank for that.




  9. #9
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    This is just more of the same anti crap. Police have to arm themselves to combat gangs. It is a "war". Gangs do not normally target the police. Gangs normally target innocent victims and each other.

    If we have an inherent right to self defense, and the people that we need to defend ourselves against have SBGs (scary black guns), then how will a ban on our having SBGs help us? (MMM answer - The new gun law, unlike the 20,000 that we have already passed, will work and only the police will have SBGs)

    Wait, do we have SBGs to defend against criminals, the state or both?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    205

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    I didn't buy my underfolder AK47 for "sporting purposes"
    Are you sure you didn't buy it for "sporting purposes"? I love my AR15... and I argue it IS FOR SPORTING PURPOSE.

    Don't fall into the definition of "sporting purposes" that the Brady's offer.. To the Brady's, the only reason to have a double-barrel shotgun is to go duck hunting.. That is their definition "sporting purpose"

    Just because a weapon is useful for warfare, it doesn't mean it doesn't have sporting purpose!

    If the Brady's had their way, gun stores would only sell TWO guns.. a 22LR rilfe and a double-barrel shotgun.. and it would certainly have a sin-tax of 200%

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    psmartin wrote:
    expvideo wrote:
    I didn't buy my underfolder AK47 for "sporting purposes"
    Are you sure you didn't buy it for "sporting purposes"? I love my AR15... and I argue it IS FOR SPORTING PURPOSE.

    Don't fall into the definition of "sporting purposes" that the Brady's offer.. To the Brady's, the only reason to have a double-barrel shotgun is to go duck hunting.. That is their definition "sporting purpose"

    Just because a weapon is useful for warfare, it doesn't mean it doesn't have sporting purpose!

    If the Brady's had their way, gun stores would only sell TWO guns.. a 22LR rilfe and a double-barrel shotgun.. and it would certainly have a sin-tax of 200%
    You're falling into their trap by arguing that it is for sporting purposes. What you are forgetting is that it is for killing people in war, and there is nothing wrong withthat. That is a perfectly fine reason to own a firearm. The 2nd amendment doesn't have anything to do with "sporting". The Brady's want you to think that you should only have a gun for sporting purposes, and they want you to try to justify those sporting purposes, because it means that they are right.

    I own my rifle to protect my country and the constitution, and no matter what the Brady bunch says, there is no reason to be ashamed of that.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    205

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    psmartin wrote:
    expvideo wrote:
    I didn't buy my underfolder AK47 for "sporting purposes"
    Are you sure you didn't buy it for "sporting purposes"? I love my AR15... and I argue it IS FOR SPORTING PURPOSE.

    Don't fall into the definition of "sporting purposes" that the Brady's offer.. To the Brady's, the only reason to have a double-barrel shotgun is to go duck hunting.. That is their definition "sporting purpose"

    Just because a weapon is useful for warfare, it doesn't mean it doesn't have sporting purpose!

    If the Brady's had their way, gun stores would only sell TWO guns.. a 22LR rilfe and a double-barrel shotgun.. and it would certainly have a sin-tax of 200%
    You're falling into their trap by arguing that it is for sporting purposes. What you are forgetting is that it is for killing people in war, and there is nothing wrong withthat. That is a perfectly fine reason to own a firearm. The 2nd amendment doesn't have anything to do with "sporting". The Brady's want you to think that you should only have a gun for sporting purposes, and they want you to try to justify those sporting purposes, because it means that they are right.

    I own my rifle to protect my country and the constitution, and no matter what the Brady bunch says, there is no reason to be ashamed of that.
    Good point..

    Today it's for sporting purpose.. Tomorrow..?.. Who knows, I'm taking it day-by-day.

    I didn't mean that as an excuse to the Brady's, but more of a.. Are they crazy, AK47's & AR15's are just plain fun.. How can you define this as "only a killing machine".. Sure, it's a highly accurate/versatile shooting platform, and that's why it's so much fun!

    If the Brady's ran drug-rehab centers, once they confiscated the drugs, they would assume all the patients were cured!

    Take the crack from the crack-addict, the person is cured.

    Take the gun away from the criminal(and everyone else in the process), the criminal is now an upstanding member of society.

    I really wonder how many times these Liberals & Brady's were dropped on their heads as babies.


  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    They were shooting prone at, what, like 25 yards? Did you see that huge group they showed? That's terrible for offhand at 100 yards!!! My my. I couldn't hear the audio, my speakers are down for a while, but looks like they're could really use some help in training! And that confiscation room... mostly looks like old rifles and shotgun butts that I can see... they had to lay out the "assault rifles" (which coincidently are mostly AK variants)... and did you notice that several were "ban" type weapons? As in the assault weapons ban did nothing, as AKs were still purchased and used in crimes.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    When the Supreme court banned sawed off shotguns back in 1939, the excuse they used was that the sawed off shotgun was NOT a military weapon. Now the gun grabbers are trying to use the opposite argument!

    "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. "
    Aymette v State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158

    When our Republic was first founded, the right to keep and bear arms was equated with the right to revolt.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    Anybody who says that we should depend on the cops to protect us, needs to see how cops shoot. Thats just one of many reasons of why we shouldn't depend on them, but one deffinitly evidence by this article's video.

    BTW - I have volunteered with many of my local Department SWAT officers at a few events, and the majority of them shoot as good as the CNN video showed. Inncaucurate.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •