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~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 4:40pm
While I and many others appreciate your support for the 2nd, there is little to that article I linked which is "straightforward". The lies are rather blatant, though in afterthought I suppose "straightforward" could be used to address the consistency of such fraudulent tactics by many gun control advocates. The commment about 30-round magazines being illegal is about as straightforward a lie as you can get.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 5:50pm

Actually you yourself said that it was illegal to make or sell those things, so therefore it certainly would not be a lie or a distortion to say that the item itself was illegal.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 8:22pm
I most assuredly did not state that it was "illegal to make or *sell* those things". What I said was that it was illegal to manufacture or IMPORT them. They are still large numbers of them legally available, and it's completely legal to possess, sell, and/or use under the terms of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

So your statement here... "Actually you yourself said that it was illegal to make or sell those things, so therefore it certainly would not be a lie or a distortion to say that the item itself was illegal." is false, based partly on a statement I never made. And the claim by the gentleman in the article is shown to be a lie, which is what I noted from the very beginning.

And your little piece of analytical sophistry? Revealed to not be worth the length of time it took you to type it. That an item is illegal to manufacture or import does not automatically, inherently, or most importantly LEGALLY make it an item prohibited from legal possession. The way this piece of legislation was written these types of magazines were Grandfathered so that those already in private hands as well as those already in dealer/distributor stock were legally transferable. That's simply the way the legislation was written and enacted into law. Sorry if you don't like that fact, but fact it is.

Care to try again?


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 10:09pm
And your little piece of analytical sophistry? Revealed to not be worth the length of time it took you to type it.

Nothing you have posted has met that test, yes, I am sure pouncing on my mistake made you feel all big and proud, but quite frankly, your "lies and distortions" met up to nothing.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 05-11-2004 - 8:48am
>>"Nothing you have posted has met that test,"<<<

Really? Let's see here, I accurately noted that it isn't "the right to keep and bear arms" in the 2nd which is "well regulated", but rather "the militia". I accurately noted that the RKBA isn't even guaranteed to "the militia", but rather to "the people". So there's two things right off the bat. I further noted the fact that 30-round magazines aren't illegal to purchase or possess as was claimed in the article I linked; that swapping out a semi-auto lower receiver for another semi-auto lower neither exploits a loophole in the AWB nor is illegal in any way as was claimed in the same article; that the AK's being used by insurgency forces in Iraq are not the same type of weapons addressed by 1994 AWB as was insinuated/distorted in the article.

Looks to me like I'm batting damn near 1000 on my statements, something which cannot be said for the individuals interviewed in that article.

>>>"The article was vanilla, it had a few paragraphs with a few quotes from people whose lives have been destroyed by people using those guns."<<<

So lies and distortions are now considered "vanilla", nothing of any real import? I'll have to remember that for the next time someone castigates Bush for what they're characterizing as lies. As for their lives having been destroyed by people using guns, that's a quite accurate observation on your part which is utterly lost on them.

>>>"So very great for you that you can catch them in any mistake they make."<<<

So great for all of us that they've illustrated the fact that they don't know what they're talking about. Now, if only the general public would catch onto that fact and direct their elected representatives accordingly.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 05-11-2004 - 11:58am
It is illegal to make new ones and sell new ones now.

You can still sell old stock off, which usually happens through the internet or at gun shows.

Also, a current gun owner can sell their magazines to other gun owners as well.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Tue, 05-11-2004 - 12:00pm
Why not just enforce the current laws that are on the books?

This is the problem, not legal gun ownership.

Please explain that when Florida became a right to carry state, the violent crime rate fell by 50% in the first year?

Please explain in right to carry states, the violent crime rate is lower than those states without a right to carry law?

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2003
Tue, 05-11-2004 - 12:05pm
>>Why not just enforce the current laws that are on the books? <<

That's the crux of SOO many issues. I think instead of wasting time and money trying to come up with new laws, maybe we should work with the ones we have first (which we have for a reason anyway...).

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 05-11-2004 - 1:35pm
Please explain that when Florida became a right to carry state, the violent crime rate fell by 50% in the first year?

See now that is a reasonable case to make.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 05-11-2004 - 3:03pm
Actually my friend I think your figure is somewhat overstated. The violent crime rate in Florida fluctuated for a couple of years after the passage of their new concealed carry law in 1987 as it took time for the effects of the new law to be seen (and the word to get out that the people of Florida weren't going to take it any more.

In '86 their violent crime rate was 1036.5, it dropped a little in '87 to 1024.4, then rose the next year, dropped again in '89, rose again in '90 to a high of 1244.3. After that it began it's real downward move and after brief spikes in '92 and '93 has steadily moved downward. As of 2001 it had fallen to 797.2.

Some more things of note on the subject.... In '87, the murder rate in Florida was 11.4/100,000, while the national rate was 8.2/100,000. By 1992, 5 years after the passage of the the Florida CCW law, the Florida homicide rate was 9/100,000 while the national rate had risen to 9.3/100,000. So 5 years after the concealed carry law they were solidly bucking the national trend.


~mark~