The "Million Mom March"...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
The "Million Mom March"...
22
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 8:04am
... And examples of why it's often derisively referred to as the "Million Moron March".

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/05/09/gun.control.rally.ap/index.html

Anyone care to count the number of lies, distortions, and misconceptions in this one short article?


~mark~

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 8:19am

I will go with ZERO.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 8:43am
And you'd be wrong. At best you weren't paying attention, though I doubt that's the case. In any event here's the verbatim text from the article and the specific lies which were told by those being interviewed.

>>."The assailant used a 9mm semiautomatic handgun with an illegal 30-round clip, Wilcox said."<<<

Lie #1, as neither possession nor use of those magazines are illegal under the terms of the 1994 AWB. Importation and domestic manufacture are illegal, but not possession.

>>>""We are working very hard in Iraq to get AK-47s off the street, to get Uzis off the streets. The president says we're fighting the war on terror by doing that," said Rep. Chris van Hollen, D-Maryland. "What about the terror right here on our streets at home."<<<

Distortion #1, as the AK's and Uzi's being used by insurgent forces in Iraq are fully automatic firearms, not the semi-automatics addressed here by the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Distortion #2 is that the fully automatic firearms alluded to as being a problem in Iraq are a particular threat here as well, something which is patently false. There has been precisely ONE crime committed with a legally owned automatic firearm in the last 70 years. That's not much of a threat, not a great deal of "terror right here on our streets at home".

>>>"He also decried a provision in the law that critics contend allows owners of legal firearms to replace the housing for the firing mechanism and turn them into illegal assault weapons. He tied the loophole to October 2002 sniper attacks that killed 10 people in van Hollen's Maryland district, Virginia and the District of Columbia."<<<

Two lies here for the price of one paragraph, both on behalf of an elected representative of the people of Maryland.

Overall Lie #3 is that such a loophole exists. It doesn't. The lower receiver of a semi-automatic firearm wasn't even a criteria used in the 1994 AWB, nor is replacing it with another semi-automatic receiver a violation of that ban. Overall Lie #4 here is that the Bushmaster used in the DC sniper shootings was involved in that loophole, as it's lower receiver had not been replaced according to ANY written report which I've ever read on the crimes.

So, we have within just one short article on the subject no less than 4 lies and 2 gross distortions. And some people wonder why it's so difficult to take the MMM and it's arguments seriously. But if you'd like you're free to show just how the claims in this article WEREN'T lies or distortions. Just do us all a favor, and for the sake of all concerned be a little more accurate than the Morons in the article.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 9:23am
"Amendment II


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "


In this single sentence you are getting one meaning and I'm getting another.


Elaine

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 9:51am

Right now there's a poll on CNN

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 11:11am
I'm sorry, did you somehow get the idea that I was making a point about the 2nd or something? We can if you'd like, but my real interest with that particular article was the number and degree of lies and distortions embraced by gun control advocates when it comes to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and which (btw) the media helps perpetuate.

As for the 2nd, you're partially correct at least in the meaning of "well regulated", which in the useage of the period was basically "to put in good order" or "properly tuned" so to speak. You're also pretty much on on the definition of militia. But that's where your analysis falls apart.

>>>"The meaning I take is that we must organize and arm ourselves to be ready to defend the country, not for personal protection, and that this bearing of arms must be regulated and controlled, and that the government may not prevent us from doing that."<<<

First, it's the government, federal or state, which does the organizing, as the militia is under their orders. So "we" aren't the ones responsible for organizing or training the militia.

Second, the 2nd is there to ensure that we have the ability to provide the arms necessary for the arming of the militia in the event it's called out.

Third, the Founders recognized that arms are necessary not just for defense of community, state or country, but of "ourselves" as families and individuals as well. That principle is also embraced within the 2nd, since that RKBA is not restricted merely to militia service, but is applicable to any legal purpose.

And fourth, it's not the bearing of arms which is regulated and controlled by the government in the 2nd, it's "the militia". Remember the text, as in "A well regulated militia..."? The militia is well regulated, not "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".

>>>"In my opinion, you are splitting hairs to distract from the real issue."<<<

For myself, I find individuals and groups telling gross lies about laws and the effect of those laws to be somewhat disturbing and detrimental to honest, objective discussion of those laws. It's a legitimate issue.

>>>>"As for the march, we all have the freedom to assemble and express our views and that includes a mass march to demonstrate the grief caused by unregulated weapons.<<<"

Yes, they have the right to march and tell all the lies they wish, and that's precisely what they're doing. As for your "unregulated weapons", I'm truly sorry to find yet another person unaware of the facts of the matter where firearms regulations are concerned and buying into the hype and hysteria perpetrated by the MMM.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 11:13am
With CNN and Co. doing their level best to perpetuate the lies, distortions and misconceptions spewed by the gun control crowd, the tallies for that poll aren't very surprising. Now, if they were being honest about what the AWB did and didn't do, there might be a different result.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 11:17am

The problem with your arguements is that they only argue for TOUGHER laws that are enforced, not the removal of the laws themselves.


As for your "lies & distortions" list, I would consider that list to be a lie and distortion.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 12:00pm
As an advocate of the Second Amendment, I think that there are several distortions to the gun control myths but the story you comment on is fairly straight forward. I do not agree with everything that the NRA states, but I do agree that the Second Amendment protects the ordinary person's right to keep and bear arms.

I would only call to task the one item about the loopholes which were tied to the sniper attacks. I don't see the connection. These people were not shot with a machine gun, but a semi-automatic rifle which is still legal. This is not a loophole, which is misleading.

The main error that anti-gun people have is that more gun control does not stop violent crimes. If you look for proof, look north of the border to Canada, whos violent crime rate has gone up, as has the violent crime rate in Great Britain.

We have gun laws on the books, but the problem is that these laws are not enforced.

If someone commits a crime using a weapon, the penalty should be a mandatory minimum of 10 or 15 years. If these people harm someone with a gun during the course of a crime, then the mandatory minimum sentence should 25 years or more.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 12:03pm
One opinion of this Amendment (which scares many politicians) is that the founding fathers intended this to be included to prevent the government from taking total control of the lives of the citizens of the country, as it did in England.

It is to protect our country, but not only from invading forces, but from having a dictator take over this country, which would be met by force of the people.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 2:01pm
LOL! They do no such thing, since existing law is fine for dealing with practically every firearms-related offense against individuals as well as those concerning federal restrictions on firearms possession. Enforcement of these existing laws would be quite sufficient.

Regarding the 1994 AWB itself, it's largely pointless since the criteria it used in determining which firearms needed banning were almost exclusively cosmetic in nature. Seriously, what kind of overt threat is posed by a firearm with a bayonet lug? Did we have a sudden rash of affixed-bayonetings or something which didn't make the news back before the ban?

As for this... "As for your "lies & distortions" list, I would consider that list to be a lie and distortion."

So fine, show us all where I'm wrong. Show us how a 30-round magazine is illegal to possess under the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Show us how the types of firearms being used in the insurgency in Iraq are the same ones currently addressed by the 1994 AWB. Show us where it's illegal or the use of a "loophole" to change a lower receiver on a semi-auto with another semi-auto lower receiver.

What *precisely* have I lied about? What *specifically* have I distorted? Don't fall back on generalization, please point out my *specific* legal errors, lies, and distortions.


~mark~

Pages