Not sure if any of you have seen this. My friend at work shouted it to me on digg. I'm sure someone has posted it before, but I have not seen it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
The Truth About Semi-Auto Firearms
- Thread starter LT1MCSS
- Start date
An excellent film. The hard part is getting it in front of anyone who would benefit from an education.
For the most part, I have learned that when talking to anti-gun folks they have one thing in common.... their mind is made up and they don't want to be confused by facts.
-Rick
For the most part, I have learned that when talking to anti-gun folks they have one thing in common.... their mind is made up and they don't want to be confused by facts.
-Rick
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Yeah, it's a dupe. Funny thing is it was done in '89 (he mentions Stockton happening a few weeks back). Some good that did... ![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Yeah, I'm sure it was a dupe, but maybe try and talk to some anti-gun friends and circulate them around.
I was really surprised by the people at my work. Some of them really took in interest in the fact I am into shooting sports and really wanted to know more about it. I have also changed the minds of some "would be" anti-gun people. Changing their mind more towards the pro-gun point of view wasn't as hard as I thought. Once they were correctly informed of the laws and what they meant, some even said "So what are we banning? or Why ban assault rifles"
I was really surprised by the people at my work. Some of them really took in interest in the fact I am into shooting sports and really wanted to know more about it. I have also changed the minds of some "would be" anti-gun people. Changing their mind more towards the pro-gun point of view wasn't as hard as I thought. Once they were correctly informed of the laws and what they meant, some even said "So what are we banning? or Why ban assault rifles"
I may have seen it years ago, based on his implicated reference regarding the televised bank shoot-out in (LA I think) California a dozen or so years ago.
It was a good piece; though there were parts I would have changed or written differently. The only time I would use the term assault rifle would be when referencing what the media portrays. I would also drop the word “weapon”, yes it is very NRA to use only the word “firearm”, but it still stands that most people associate “weapon” in a negative connotation, similar to “punishment.” I would have also differentiated between legal for police and LEO, and “highly restricted for citizen ownership” regarding the AK-47 vs. SAR-1. Admittedly I can be a purest though regarding semantics, quite frankly between that and integrity, this is all we have.
P.S. I wrote this between the time the OP and jdubois posted while trying to get Heat by SteyrAUG to run properly on my laptop. PM me and I'll try to post it (31mb) someplace.
It was a good piece; though there were parts I would have changed or written differently. The only time I would use the term assault rifle would be when referencing what the media portrays. I would also drop the word “weapon”, yes it is very NRA to use only the word “firearm”, but it still stands that most people associate “weapon” in a negative connotation, similar to “punishment.” I would have also differentiated between legal for police and LEO, and “highly restricted for citizen ownership” regarding the AK-47 vs. SAR-1. Admittedly I can be a purest though regarding semantics, quite frankly between that and integrity, this is all we have.
P.S. I wrote this between the time the OP and jdubois posted while trying to get Heat by SteyrAUG to run properly on my laptop. PM me and I'll try to post it (31mb) someplace.
yup
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
His reference in the beginning to Stockton was the Stockton school shooting, not the, one of many actually - http://www.labankrobbers.org/ -, LA bank heists (although you were referring to the N. Hollywood one I am sure).
He is referring to the 1989 Stockton California Cleveland Elementary School shooting by Patrick Purdy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Purdy
Which resulted in the 1989 California assault weapons ban of a named list of semi-automatic rifles (from memory, named weapons included AK-47, SKS, Colt AR-15, Striker Street Sweeper, Steyr Aug, FN-FAL, etc.). Media coverage portrayed Purdy as using an AK-47. He used a Type-56 purchased in Oregon. This also resulted in one of the more poorly implemented gun control measures in California since it banned items by name. Some lawsuits failed and at a later date, the AG expanded the list retroactively forcing one of the few gun grabs in the state (mostly on confusion over what was and wasn't an SKS.).
This was the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989.
This legislation has not been used as a model since, as its implementation failed to regulate subsequent availability of non-Colt AR-15 receivers and FAL receivers reimported or manufactured by companies other than Fabrique-Nationale.
The North Hollywood Bank Robbery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout) by Larry Eugene Phillips, Jr. and Emil Matasareanu in 1997 (during Brady) is different in that they used modified semi-automatic weapons (AK, HK91, and AR-15) and were also wearing level III or possibly IV body armor (home made).
There is also another event in 1993, The 101 California Street shooting spree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_California_Street_shootings) with a Tec-9 (banned since 1989).
Patrick Purdy's shooting spree at a Stockton grade school and Gian Luigi Ferri's shooting spree at a law office at 101 California Street resulted in California's legislators supporting the Brady bill in 1994.
In 2000 California upped the ante to single evil assault weapons, modelling after the characteristic criteria from Brady but defining an assault weapon based on a single evil characteristic with the feature list:
semi-automatic with a detachable magazine and any 1 of:
- pistol grip
- thumbhole stock, collapsible stock, folding stock
- bayonet lug
- flash suppressor, flash hider, threaded barrel
- grenade launcher, grenade adaptor
- night scope
- forward vertical grip
and I think also flame thrower, but might be wrong about that one.
AR-15's disappeared from california for a time until manufacturers figured out two workarounds - an axe-head shaped pistol grip that went straight back to the stock, or a fixed magazine loaded off of a stripper clip from the upper receiver.
I don't bother attempting to convert people anymore. The same people continue to elect the same people in office because honestly most people in this state are either solid in their beliefs, or just don't care enough to do anything.
+1 for that video though, it really made some good points.
+1 for that video though, it really made some good points.
SemiAutoSam
Banned
This guy also does not have a clue when it comes to NFA weapons.
He says that its illegal for the general public to own them and that is 100% BS.
While yes it takes a FBI background check and a $200.00 fee paid in the form of a tax stamp to the Dept of Treasury.
It is legal in 35 out of 50 states. (57 if your Obama)
He says that its illegal for the general public to own them and that is 100% BS.
While yes it takes a FBI background check and a $200.00 fee paid in the form of a tax stamp to the Dept of Treasury.
It is legal in 35 out of 50 states. (57 if your Obama)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw
I hadn't seen that one before. Much like the bowling pin picture quiz I put up a while back.
I hadn't seen that one before. Much like the bowling pin picture quiz I put up a while back.
