Midweek Politics with David Pakman - 08.19.2009

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by stolz25

Eh, deer is pretty gross anyway. I had a roommate in college who made deer jerky all the time (and stuck most of the remains of another deer in the deep freeze he brought into our apartment). He also hid guns all over the apartment. I declined to room with him again.

I've had deer from the midwest, and I can honestly say it's a lot better than the deer in the west. Feeding on corn > feeding on sagebrush --although, I don't particularly like any red meat as it is.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

I've had deer from the midwest, and I can honestly say it's a lot better than the deer in the west. Feeding on corn > feeding on sagebrush --although, I don't particularly like any red meat as it is.

Well I don't know what the deer around here eat, though you don't see much corn being grown.

[dpakman91]

So the entire argument over whether this guy brought in assault rifles or not to an Obama event, ie there was a gunman there, really depends on...possibly, the GRIP on the gun? if that's not semantics, i don't know what is.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Refer to the items emboldened on the list, as well as the qualifying parenthetical statement I put at the end of the sentence:

Are you aware that the laws to which you are referring are specifically made against magazine capacity? Are you also aware that the round I described, the 5.56x45mm is more effective in bringing down deer than a 30-30 or a 30-06, due to the latter's velocity and impact energy? The 30 caliber rounds tend, instead of disintegrating on impact (like the NATO round), tend to go right through, which means the deer, if no vital organs are severed, can run for miles and hours on end without getting too weak. Talk about suffering.

Are you also aware that there were no deers present at the Obama rally?

The point I was trying to make is that you're trying to make it seem like the AR-15 is some devestatingly powerful rifle by copying buzz statements off wikipedia almost word for word, when in reality it isn't. Most people who go hunting fire much more powerful rounds. The reason people like to shoot the AR-15 (mostly at ranges) is because of its low recoil and similar feel of the M16. The point is the news media is reporting the weapon as an assault rifle when in reality they don't know whether it was or not. The weapon was no more dangerous than any other semi automatic hunting rifle you could pick up at Walmart, but the media is calling it an assault rifle because of the emotional reaction it receives. I'm not surprised certain members here support that rather than the facts, but I figured I would at least point it out.

MSNBC was even reporting it as a "white man" showing up to a black president's meeting with a rifle and implied racism. When they showed his picture they purposely didn't scan his face because the person carrying the rifle was clearly black. The point I'm trying to make here is a simple one.. the media is taking this way out of hand, way out of context and trying to make it into something it's not.

I agree that people shouldn't take weapons to protest the president. That's just bad precedent and makes it that much harder to protect the president. But some objectivity on the subject would be nice. Most news reports I've read about this didn't even cover why these people are showing up with weapons. That's a fundamental journalism 101 question to cover.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by dpakman91

So the entire argument over whether this guy brought in assault rifles or not to an Obama event, ie there was a gunman there, really depends on...possibly, the GRIP on the gun? if that's not semantics, i don't know what is.

The grip of the gun has nothing to do with it really. The pistol grip is not enough to classify it as an assault rifle. Liberals of this country have ignorantly defined what assault rifles are through definitions that have nothing to do with level of dangerousness to society. The limitations are generally aesthetic. What's annoying is that those same people who hate assault rifles are the first ones to jump up and down mislabeling guns. The whole purpose of the AR-15 was to provide a non-assault rifle version of the M16 for civilians. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. The M16 has a three round automatic burst, the older version used in Vietnam M16A1 was fully automatic. The M16 also has a couple extras that the AR-15 doesn't. The military changed the M16 to a 3 round burst to save on ammunition and because recoil and aim gets pretty shitty after 3 rounds anyway.

I saw a picture of the weapon in question and didn't see a bayonet lug, collapsible stock, flash suppressor, or anything added to the weapon that would classify it as an assault rifle. The media is also reporting it as a semi-automatic which means based on their reporting it hasn't been modified for automatic use. There is nothing that I can see that makes it an assault rifle. No media report I've read quotes the owner as having made any modifications to it or listed any modifications to his AR-15. In that case, it is not an assault rifle.

What it appears is happening is the media is picking up on buzzwords and running with it even though it's factually incorrect. I was merely pointing that out to you. I understand your show is left leaning, you have every right to host a liberal talk radio show. But I've listened to your show many times and you have always worked towards presenting factual information. If you want to ignore the current facts of the issue to promote buzzwords be my guest. But I expected more.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by dpakman91

So the entire argument over whether this guy brought in assault rifles or not to an Obama event, ie there was a gunman there, really depends on...possibly, the GRIP on the gun? if that's not semantics, i don't know what is.

But i'm sure that wont keep people from bloviating on the subject and trying to somehow pin this all on libruls and the media.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The point I was trying to make is that you're trying to make it seem like the AR-15 is some devestatingly powerful rifle by copying buzz statements off wikipedia almost word for word, when in reality it isn't.
[...]
But some objectivity on the subject would be nice.

I said by definition the AR-15 is indeed an assault weapon. You said it wasn't, and I showed you that you were wrong. I never made any claims on its power until you started telling me it was weak and (essentially) harmless (as I recall it, it is inhumane to hunt because the rounds are so weak --which is another false statement).

If you want to start discussing objectivity, let's count the amount of false statements you've made thus far. If you want to stop attacking things I say (you've been at it quite recently with no fruits to bear) and actually discuss the topics at hand, then great. Otherwise, I suggest not responding to this.

[stolz25]

All I know is it's the liberal media's fault.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

I said by definition the AR-15 is indeed an assault weapon. You said it wasn't, and I showed you that you were wrong.

No, by definition it is not. An AR-15 is not an assault weapon unless it is modified in a way that makes it an assault weapon, but then again you could modify any rifle to have it classified as such. You're completely wrong. Is your experience with the AR-15/M16 limited to a wikipedia article?

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Is your experience with the AR-15/M16 limited to a wikipedia article?

I've shot both, bang bang!

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by JaJae

No, by definition it is not. An AR-15 is not an assault weapon unless it is modified in a way that makes it an assault weapon, but then again you could modify any rifle to have it classified as such. You're completely wrong.

Okay, how about this. The AR-15 comes manufactured with the following:
- Pistol Grip
- Threaded barrel (not rifling, but manufactured to fit flash suppressor)

Now, I'm no expert in mathematics, but I think that's two, and they are hardly "modifications" when they are manufactured STOCK. Under that definition, as was my original contention before you decided to draw fire () against it, the AR-15 is indeed an assault weapon.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Is your experience with the AR-15/M16 limited to a wikipedia article?

My experience with assault weapons is about as deep as your experience with socialized health care, which you've proven in previous threads is ample.

Obviously you weren't able to take my suggestion. And you forgot the rest of my post...

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Okay, how about this. The AR-15 comes manufactured with the following:
- Pistol Grip
- Threaded barrel (not rifling, but manufactured to fit flash suppressor)

Now, I'm no expert in mathematics, but I think that's two, and they are hardly "modifications" when they are manufactured STOCK.

Sigh. A "STOCK" AR-15 does not have a threaded barrel. Whatever dude. Feel free to think whatever the hell you want, it's clear you're going to anyway. Don't let pesky things like facts get in the way. It's strange because the wikipedia article doesn't really say what you think it says. You're picking out buzzwords within the article and you're not fully comprehending what you're reading because you're reading to fulfill your preconceived opinion. I admit the article is a bit confusing, but if you read it in full and in context you would see the article does not support your position.

AR-15 (for Armalite model 15,[9]) is the common name for the widely-owned[10] semi-automatic rifle which soon afterwards became the selective fire M16 and M4 carbine assault rifles, which are currently in use by the United States military.

See the distinction right there in the FIRST sentence. It calls the AR-15 a semi-automatic rifle.. that's what it is. It also calls the M16 and the M4 assault rifles.. that's what they are. Can you modify an AR-15 to be an assault rifle? Yes. Do many people modify their rifles to make them assault rifles? Absolutely. Now that the assault weapons ban has expired can you purchase a pre-modified AR-15 for a premium? Yes. Does that mean what the man was carrying at the rally is an assault rifle? Not necessarily.

The AR-15 has always been classified as a non-assault rifle. That is why they were so popular during the assault weapons ban. That's right, they were sold left and right through the assault weapons ban because... they aren't assault weapons. Go figure. But feel free to think whatever you want, in fact I've even heard they have Bibles in the butt and they have a special aiming device that makes them more dangerous to abortion doctors and presidents than a regular hunting rifle you can pick up at the local store. I'm done here, good luck convincing yourself.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by JaJae

[Shtuff]

You completely misread my first response to this thread, which was pointed out (by Stolz and myself), and then you retreated into semantics *again* (which was pointed out by pakman and myself).

YouTube - Nirvana - In Bloom

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Have you ever fired an M16 or AR-15? Are you also aware that the AR-15 is banned in many states to be used for deer hunting because it is considered inhumane to the deer? It isn't powerful enough. They require you to use a rifle that fires a more powerful round.

Thats because the original M16 was designed to shoot at people and not deer. They also felt arming our guys with a weapon that had better range and accuracy was more important than overall power.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Thats because the original M16 was designed to shoot at people and not deer. They also felt arming our guys with a weapon that had better range and accuracy was more important than overall power.

alright, I have been letting you guys have your wiki proof arguments about weapons while LOLing on the sidelines but I going to have to step in here.

This post is 100% wrong, the m16 was developed and chosen for other reasons than range and accuracy.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

alright, I have been letting you guys have your wiki proof arguments about weapons while LOLing on the sidelines but I going to have to step in here.

This post is 100% wrong, the m16 was developed and chosen for other reasons than range and accuracy.

Drill sergeants have always told me the reason the M16 was chosen was because it was lighter, more accuracy/range, but also because the round ricochets inside the body. This enables a battlefield wounding effect that can be used to pick off enemy combatants coming back to pick up their fallen soldier.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Drill sergeants have always told me the reason the M16 was chosen was because it was lighter, more accuracy/range, but also because the round ricochets inside the body. This enables a battlefield wounding effect that can be used to pick off enemy combatants coming back to pick up their fallen soldier.

the m16 is lighter than the garand or m14 but the full battle rifles have much better accuracy and range. The Marine Corps still uses m14s for this reason.

and all the talk about the round ricocheting is a little over-estimated in my opinion. Its not a mexican jumping bean like some would have you believe.

[dpakman91]

Likely mentioning the assault rifle semantics on the show tonight