Stop blaming the NRA for failed gun control efforts

The fact that left wing MSM is hostile to the NRA is not news:

"Media Bias Backlash: NRA Memberships Up As Msm Propagandizes For Gun Control"
http://thewashingtonstandard.com/media-bias-backlash-nra-memberships-msm-propagandizes-gun-control/


"Fake News CNN Pushes False Story About AR-15 Purchase"
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/fake-news-cnn-pushes-false-story-about-ar-15-purchase_02212018
EXCERPT "CNN’s Chris Cuomo retweeted the account of one @usaphotodude quoting a reporter named Cody Davis on Tuesday. The tweet read, “I was able to buy an AR-15 in five minutes. I’m 20 and my ID is expired.” There’s only one problem: that never happened."CONTINUED

 

Denial does not refute the NRA's documented lies and falsehoods.

 

Deflection does not refute the NRA's documented lies and falsehoods.

 

Then actually present the aforementioned lies and falsehoods that are being referred to by yourself. Present them for yourself, rather than citing and linking to those who make claims about what they believe to be lies and falsehoods. It was one of your own citations that referred to the AR-15 as being a so-called "weapon of war" when it is not even close to being such.

 

To people that are not knowledgeable about firearms, a weapon of War is any firearm that appears particularly "War like" I had Neighbor that was a Vietnam Veteran and he would mock me when he saw me on my way to the Range.
I always had one or two AR rifles.
At that time I was building them, from Mil Spec parts kits.
Original stenciled markings, Mil Spec contract lowers.

 

The links provided supported my position and denial on your part does not alter the facts in those links.

 

The links provided by yourself refer to the AR-15 as being a "weapon of war" which is factually incorrect. Therefore the falsehoods are being presented and by extension supported by yourself.

 

Quibbling duly noted as a feeble attempt to deflect from the FACTS provided in the links about the NRA's lies and falsehoods.

 

The links have been analyzed in depth, and so far nothing that amounts to "lies and falsehoods" by the NRA have been found. Nothing more than the hysterical, incoherent screaming of those who support greater firearm-related restrictions have been found in any of the links provided by yourself.

 

Gun Banners' who would eviscerate the Bill of Rights use rhetoric is at least as replete with documented lies & falsehoods if not greater.
Only one side of the debate wishes to preserve our entire Bill of Rights while enemies of the constitution lie to destroy it.
Those of us who served in the US Military took an oath the defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign & domestic.
Since there was no mention of an "Expiration date" on that oath, I will continue to oppose the Constitution's domestic enemies who would destroy our hard won freedoms for the illusion of "security".

 

As someone who has also taken that oath I will uphold your right to your fallacious opinions.

However that does NOT alter the FACT that no one is going to take away your precious firearms.

Furthermore not a single gun owner raised a finger when Bush jr deprived Americans of their rights. Instead a great many of them were cheering him on.

So spare us all the drivel about guns "protecting" anything other than the fragile egos of those who need them to bolster their "manhood".

 

There are no facts to be found in any of the links provided by yourself. Just opinions by those who possess no understanding of firearms, or their use.

 

Yes, they mount obstacles and arguements without any technical expertise on the topics discussed.

 

Thanks & I too support your right to your fallacious opinions. Why do you value the 1st Amendment but dispose the 2nd Amendment?

Wrong, again:

1. "165 House Dems propose new ‘assault weapon ban’ that would extend to pistols and shotguns"
https://sofrep.com/100245/165-house...an-that-would-extend-to-pistols-and-shotguns/
EXCERPT "Cicilline outlined the primary changes being called for, which include the prohibition of sale, transfer, production, and importation of all semi-automatic rifles and pistols “with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine,” any semi-automatic rifles that can hold more than ten rounds, semi-automatic shotguns with “military-style” features, and also ammunition feeding devices that can be used in place of magazines that hold more than ten rounds.By these standards, pistols like the Glock 19 and Glock 17 would be subject to this “assault weapon” ban, though lower magazine capacity pistols like the 1911 would not."CONTINUED


2. "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of privately owned firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno. Good morning America Dec 10, 1993.


3. "WATCH: Gun Control Activist Gives Perfect Reason Not To Give Into Their Demands"
https://www.dailywire.com/news/2865...lywire.com&utm_term=68804&utm_content=2209149
EXCERPT "When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile."CONTINUED


4. "Ban all guns, now"
https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/ban-all-guns-now/Content?oid=2147131

In a taunting attempt to slander all 2nd Amendment supporters as somehow fearful, paranoid & sexually deficient, you're only exposing your own ignorance about the average gun owner & the world at large.

The following unpublished study confirms what many of us who have lived, worked, & traveled extensively already know.
I am just one of the millions of Americans who is alive today because I was armed when confronted by some of the real world thugs whose intent was not to make me or in one case, my neighbors any healthier, wealthier or happier.


"Unpublished CDC Study Confirms over 2 Million Annual Defensive Gun Uses"
.http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...confirms-2-million-annual-defensive-gun-uses/
EXCERPT "Now, a CDC study conducted on data from 1996, 1997, and 1998 has been uncovered. The study, which was never released to the public, shows approximately 2.46 million DGUs per year."CONTINUED

 

That's made up isn't it?

 

I wouldn't have used it if I thought it was a misquote and would welcome any credible refutation of its accuracy.
Meanwhile, there remain the other three sources citing various calls for disarming the American people made by powerful US politicians.

 

Please provide evidence in support. Thanks!

 

Well, let's just drop the Janet Reno quote & focus on the remaining three.

What's your point?



1. "165 House Dems propose new ‘assault weapon ban’ that would extend to pistols and shotguns"
https://sofrep.com/100245/165-house...an-that-would-extend-to-pistols-and-shotguns/
EXCERPT "Cicilline outlined the primary changes being called for, which include the prohibition of sale, transfer, production, and importation of all semi-automatic rifles and pistols “with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine,” any semi-automatic rifles that can hold more than ten rounds, semi-automatic shotguns with “military-style” features, and also ammunition feeding devices that can be used in place of magazines that hold more than ten rounds.By these standards, pistols like the Glock 19 and Glock 17 would be subject to this “assault weapon” ban, though lower magazine capacity pistols like the 1911 would not."CONTINUED



2. "WATCH: Gun Control Activist Gives Perfect Reason Not To Give Into Their Demands"
https://www.dailywire.com/news/2865...lywire.com&utm_term=68804&utm_content=2209149
EXCERPT "When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile."CONTINUED


3. "Ban all guns, now"
https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/ban-all-guns-now/Content?oid=2147131

 

Happy to look at those references later. I'm just interested in how you're prepared to use a quote that is bogus. Why don't you check your sources?

 

2. "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of privately owned firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno. Good morning America Dec 10, 1993

Dubious quote.
No reference found


TRUTHORFICTION.COM
Janet Reno: Waiting Period for Firearms Only the First Step, Prohibition the Goal-
Fiction!

Janet Reno: Waiting Period for Firearms Only the First Step, Prohibition the Goal-Mostly Fiction!


Summary of eRumor:
Former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno said that a waiting period for firearms purchases was only the first step, and total prohibition was the ultimate goal.

The Truth:
Janet Reno said that establishing a waiting period for firearms purchases was
just a first step” in gun control in 1993. But Reno said she didn’t support a total prohibition on private firearms when she served under President Clinton in the 1990s.

It’s not clear where this rumor came from, but it’s persistent. It’s been in circulation for years, and it tends to resurface when the national gun control debate flares up. The rumor goes that Janet Reno said that a total prohibition of firearms was the ultimate goal in a December 10, 1993, appearance on Good Morning America. It resurfaced again after the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on Feb. 14, 2018.


Janet Reno said a probationary period on gun purchases was a first step in gun control, but she didn’t support a total ban.

First, it doesn’t appear that Janet Reno was on Good Morning America on December 10, 1993. An IMDB page for the show lists actors Terri Hatcher and Dean Cain as the only guests that day. It’s possible, however, that footage of Janet Reno discussing gun control was featured on the show — even if she wasn’t an in-studio guest. And Reno did take part in a lengthy press conference on Capitol Hill the day earlier, on December 9, 1993.

Questions during the December 9th press conference focused mostly on proposed licensing requirements for gun owners and a proposed federal registry of gun owners. When asked about licensing, Reno said, “I don’t think somebody should have a gun unless they can demonstrate that they know how to safely and lawfully use it, that they’re capable of safely and lawfully using it, and that they’re willing to safely and lawfully use it.” When asked about a federal registry, she replied, “I don’t like it. I don’t think it serves a purpose.”

The line of questioning then shifted slightly to possibly limiting the number of firearms available. A reporter said that the police chief of Los Angeles said that there should be “some kind of limitation on the number of guns that can be available, or that can exist in any given jurisdiction.” Asked if she’d support that, Reno said she’d have to address the chief’s proposal before she could “comment intelligently” on the proposal. Then asked if she’d support any proposal at all to limit the number of guns available, Reno answered, “no.”

Janet Reno did, however, comment in August 1993 that establishing a probationary period for firearm purchases under the Brady Bill was “just the first step in gun control.” UPI reports that Reno said, “We need to ban assault weapons that have no sporting purposes.” And the Clinton administration succeeded in passing an assault weapons ban in 1994 — and Congress allowed the assault weapons ban to lapse in 2004.

So, Janet Reno’s comments don’t indicate that she ever supported a total gun ban. She supported a ban on assault weapons without sporting purposes, but she didn’t support a prohibition on all private firearms. That’s why we’re calling this one “mostly fiction.”

 

You tell them.

 

"DoctorWho" was kind enough to clarify the quote in his Post #896. Meanwhile, I do normally check my sources & while Janet Reno called for the banning of so called "assault weapons" which is conspicuously vague & could include any firearm, she did not call for a ban on on all privately owned firearms.


Diane Feinstein did:

"Feinstein in 1995: 'Mr. and Mrs. America, Turn Them All In'"


I've made my point that there are treacherous, vocal individuals & powerful politicians who want to completely disarm American citizens.

Now, what's your point?

 

Yet another disingenuous OUT OF CONTEXT distortion!

Feinstein was SPECIFICALLY and ONLY referring to "assault weapons".

That you cannot provide accurate in context quotes says volumes!

 

You've gone to a site that offered Feinstein and acknowledged that the original quote was made up. That quote plagues forums as people simply copy and paste over drivel. How can you expect people to treat your posts seriously if you are prepared to copy and paste misinformation?

 

I've gladly acknowledged that one of the 5 examples I cited was a misquote.
Get back to me when you have a topic related point to make.