Saturday, January 31, 2009

Carl Levin lies while showing disrespect for the Constitution

The US Senate collectively is the biggest group of screw ups in any governmental body. No group has singlehandedly screwed up this country since the Carter administration.

Carl Levin has been in office for 30 years, first elected in 1978. Since then, he can almost always be counted on for embarassing this state. While there was this talk of "hope and change" during the last election, leave it to the senate to send the same group of old timers and screw ups back to Washington. Carl Levin leads the way in this state. More of the same.

Levin just ran his mouth again showing his distain for the constitution. There's many LIES given here, and he needs to be called out on them.


The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives described assault weapons in their Assault Weapons Profile as weapons “designed for rapid fire and close quarter shooting at human beings.


That's not what was banned under the old law. What was banned were mostly RIFLES. Rifles are not designed for close quarter shooting. "Rapid rife" firearms were banned in 1934 without a special Class 3 licenses (and those are restricted to those built before 1986). Carl, you need to shut the hell up if you don't understand an issue, but where else could I expect more ignorance than from the US Senate.


That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guns in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are massed produced mayhem.” Unlike semiautomatic hunting rifles, which are designed to be fired from the shoulder and rely on the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, assault weapons are designed to be fired at the hip and to maximize their ability to rapidly shoot multiple human targets.


Now that is just one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in my life. The "evil" AK-47's are shot from the shoulder. So is the AR-15, MP-5, and all pistols.

The report also outlines the dangerous weapons race law enforcement officers have been forced to enter in an effort to counter the increasing likelihood that they will be confronted by a criminal wielding an assault weapon. In addition to the common criminal, assault weapons are high attractive weapons for terrorists. The ease which with they can currently be purchased, combined with their designed ability to inflict as much damage possible, make them ideal tools for conspiring terrorists. Just last year five men were arrested in New Jersey with a stockpile of assault weapons, while planning to attack the United States Army base at Fort Dix.


Under the ban, I could have stockpiled a ton of pre-ban fireams easily. Nothings changed since the ban. The rest is just political speak and crap by someone who has high disrespect for freedom.

Despite the overwhelming support of the law enforcement community,

Like who outside of a few chiefs, which are mostly politicians whose job is to kiss the mayor's rear end?

Now, four years later, 19 previously banned military-style assault weapons, some capable of firing up to 600 rounds per minute, are once again pervading our streets and neighborhoods.


This is the biggest pile of crap of all. 600 rounds a minute? Why don't you prove it, son? You get one of those pre-ban firearms, and fire off 600 rounds in a minute. I'll even let you pre-load all the magazines first. If you can't do that with one of these formerly banned so called assault weapons, sit down and shut your damn mouth. There is no way in hell I could fire off 600 rounds in one minute with a semi-auto with a standard magazine. 10 rounds in one second, with 20 standard magazines (30 rounds). That means I reload twenty times in a minute. I'm not sure I could even pull off 600 rounds in a low recoil Ruger 10/22 with a teardrop magazine (50 rounds - 12 reloads) in a minute, let alone with a AR-15 or a semi-auto knockoff of an MP-5 or Uzi (Full auto). This isn't an automatic firearm we're discussing here, but the firing of one bullet per one trigger pull.

Here's the thing that is ALWAYS the case about gun grabbers. They can not rely on the facts in making their argument. They rely on lies and deception in their fight against freedom. They lie about not taking our guns away, lie about the facts in order to scare people, lie about saying it does not apply to hunting weapons, and lie. The reason why gun grabbers like Levin lie is because they believe that only the government should own firearms and that us rubes can not be trusted with them. When only the government has guns, it's called a police state.

It's time for real change. Unfortunately, the people of Michigan wanted more of the same and re-election this fool. Don't blame me. I voted for Jack, and Rocky before him.

And one again, if you don't know the fact Levin, sit down and shut your damn mouth, son.

15 comments:

RightMichigan.com said...

Levin stretches credibility well past the breaking point but the problem is, the guys covering his statements have probably never held a rifle in their lives.

They A) have no clue he's lying and B) are so ideologically in the tank with him that they wouldn't do anything about it if they knew.

Another reason the blogosphere is so important these days.

--Nick
www.RightMichigan.com

Dex said...

Levin's essentially repeating, word-for-word, a press release by the same title from the Brady Campaign.

RyanO said...

Yep - because every American needs an assault rifle. I know that solves every problem instead of creating more.

Dex said...

RyanO -- they're talking about so-called "assault WEAPONS", not assault RIFLES. Do you know the difference?

Republican Michigander said...

Assault Weapons - Whatever the government, media, or advocacy group says it is to make the firearm sound bad so it can be banned. The definition varies by state.

Assault Rifles - Select fire rifle that can be switched from semi to burst to full auto. A Class III license is required to own one and it is very difficult to own.

As far as "needs" go, it's not the Bill of Needs, it is the Bill of Rights. I support our Constitution, and do not care for our rights to be violated, whether it be from Levin's gun grabs, bipartisan attacks on free speech, Janet Reno and Bill Clinton's sneak and peek proposal in the name of the drug war, or the 99 vote supporting misnamed Patriot Act which impliment Reno and Clinton's plan for "terrorism".

Dex said...

RepubMich, exactly right. I was quizzing RyanO to see if he knew the difference. Given what he said in his post, I'm betting that he doesn't, even after your succinct definitions.

RyanO said...

Hmm...just seems to me the 2nd amendment is just an out-of-date relic left over from the Revolutionary War that was intended to protect colonists from British troops but has now been expanded way beyond its original intent. Just an interpretation. I could be wrong, but then again, so could you.

Republican Michigander said...

The first amendment is outdated and was never meant to apply to television or radio or the Internet.

The original intent is clear in Federalist 46. Keep in mind the population of the early US back in that day when reading it.

The 2nd Amendment is the final check and balance against the government. Not necessarily the British government, but any government, foreign or domestic.

RyanO said...

I certainly understand that, and I am not discrediting people's right to own a gun. I understand the need to hunt for food, the desire for target shooting for recreation, and any other reasonable approach. However, I am discouraged to see how rapidly things escalate when it comes to violence concerning guns. I am tired of (ignorant) people using guns as a way to end disputes and to make themselves feel superior to others. However, I guess this is more of a comment on society in general than guns.

Dex said...

[Warning: Long-winded]

RyanO, when you talk of "(ignorant) people using guns as a way to end disputes and to make themselves feel superior to others", you're talking about a particular class of people. They're called "criminals".

Consider: There are between 80 and 90 million gun owners in this country, with around 290 million guns. In a year, there are approximately 30,000 deaths due to firearms.

Half of those deaths are suicides. People who use guns for suicide, aren't "crying for help", in shrink jargon. They're trying to end it. Take away the gun, and they'll go to rope, monoxide, bridges, drowning, whatever.

The other half breaks down to homicide, accident, justifiable (citizen and police) shootings, and so forth. I'm going to line up the statistics (rough average) one on top of the other, to make a sort-of graph.

80,000,000 gun owners
290,000,000 guns
30,000 total deaths
15,000 suicides
1,000 to 3,000 or so accidental
12,000 to 13,000 non-justifiable homicides

Let's assume (stretching it) that 1 non-justifiable homicide = 1 killer. In fact, most killers are multiple offenders. Even stretching it, that's six thousand non-murdering gun owners per killer.

At a rough guess, there's also (extrapolating from the states I know) about 4 to 6 million people with concealed-carry permits, just in the shall-issue states. We (I'm one of 'em) average fewer criminal convictions per group of permit carriers, than some police departments.

Here's another tidbit: Most criminal-homicide victims, be it murder, manslaughter, or what-have-you, are themselves criminals. In some areas of the country, it's about 75% of all homicide victims. The juiciest example is Baltimore, MD: NINETY FIVE PERCENT of their murder victims are, themselves, crooks.

You have two cultures: the gun culture, and thug culture. Two different groups. By the way, only one in five gun owners hunts. The Second Amendment ain't about hunting.

RyanO said...

Fine - 30,000 people dead by guns broken down into various categories by you with detailed explanations. Still sounds like 30,000 dead by guns to me. It all depends on perspective. Neither of us are right or wrong. I choose not to own one and you do. You sound responsible and I am glad for that.

Dex said...

The point I was making, was that the vast majority of gun owners (like, 99.997%) ARE responsible. And you still haven't said what you meant by an "assault rifle", in your first comment.

RyanO said...

Does it really matter anymore? I have now been informed of my previous ignorance concerning "weapon" vs. "rifle". This is comparable to Homer Simpson telling Marge and the kids that a gun is not a "weapon" but a "tool" like a harpoon or a butcher knife.

Dex said...

Actually, the difference is between a heavily-regulated machinegun (assault rifle), and something that people want to ban purely because it looks scary but is NOT a machinegun ("assault weapon").

Your original post said "... every American needs an assault rifle."

Where this pushes our (gun owners') buttons, is because it's immediately jumping into an area where, frankly, most people using that phrase don't know what they're talking about.

This is further aggravated by anti-gun politicians drumming up support for bans, by deliberately misleading people.

Republican Michigander said...

Three issues here.

I have no problem with people who do not like guns or do not own guns. That's a personal decision each individual chooses to make. My problem is when individuals try to take away the right of self defense away from law abiding citizens. That's when I have the problem.

The other issue I have is ignorance and deception like the case of Mr. Levin here. Since the facts do not support Levin's case, he makes them up and uses deception. The news media in their ignorance repeat the claims of people like Levin as fact without doing their homework.

The last issue is the constitution. We don't pick and choose our constitutional rights. I'm real sick of both parties dumping on them, and the two worst offenders lately are the white progressive left on the democrats (2nd Amendment, 10th Amendment (Federal power expansion), 4th Amendment (Waco, drug war), and 1st Amendment with speech codes, campaign finance reform, and the "fairness doctrine") and the neoconservatives on the right (4th Amendment with drug war and terrorism, 10th Amendment by expanding federal powers, 1st Amendment with campaign finance reform).