March for Our Lives is on every cable channel, but who runs it? The photogenic teen fronts are out front. But it’s obvious to everyone that a bunch of teens don’t have the resources and skills to coordinate a nationwide movement. Instead it’s the experienced activists who are actually running things.
The March for Our Lives Fund is incorporated as a 501(c)(4). Donations to 501(c)(4) groups are not tax- deductible. And they don’t have to disclose donors. That’s why they’re a great dark money conduit.
But the March for Our Lives website suggests that donors who want to make a tax-deductible donation should write a check to the “March For Our Lives–Everytown Support Fund”. How will Bloomberg’s organization provide support for the supposed student group?
Why have two March for Our Lives Fund, one dark and one light? And why is one being routed through the godfather of the gun control lobby?
I don’t know that I’d call them “photogenic”.
“Whatever will civilization do with all that “recoil dampening” out there on the streets?”
try NOTHING that’s what, hand held weapons Im describing belong in the ‘hands’ of the MILITARY.
so you do get my point after all !!!
and do tell, what could a laser scope *possibly* be oh, mebbe a rifle equipped with (wait for it ) both!!!
ie a laser beam, or, perhaps some wave length that can only be seen with special glasses so as to fool the target.
which is waaaaaaaaayyyyy ober dere, thus the need for a scope to see the ‘dot’ of the beam.
and does such a weapon even exist? I dont give a hoot. the same point that the Founding Fathers did not know precisely the weaponry we would choose from in 2018. in other words, if it comes into existence, do you people *really* want something like that available like pellet guns?
I note some of you are again precisely, like leftists, carefully avoiding even an *attempt* to grasp the points I’m making. the true earmark of a leftist. just one sarcastic comment and nitpickitiness after another.
Leftist, moi? LOL.
I am merely pointing out that by your argument that certain weapons did not exist in the eighteenth century, they are not protected by the Second Amendment, then by the same token, certain “press” did not exist then either, so the only “press” protected would be the Gutenberg press. Since you protest so violently that you do believe in the freedom of the press beyond the Gutenberg press, I presume you see the error in your argument viz a viz modern weapons.
Historybuff said: “ummm, to clarify, I was referring to MODERN DAY ‘military stuff’ that can spew 100s of rounds a minute. equipped with laser scope, recoil dampening and whatever the blazes the engineers and scientists have in their kit bag. unless, any here claim all THIS existed in 1776 as well . . .”
Oh, you meant the dreaded “Assault Weapon” invented by Josh Sugarman, of Handgun Control Inc. fame. Congratulations, you have fallen for a propaganda stunt from the 1980s.
“Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.” ~ Josh Sugarmann”
That quote was from around 1980 some-odd, if memory serves. You bought it, hook, line and sinker.
Find me any instance of an actual full-auto military issue rifle used in a crime in North America. Anywhere. Ever. Fair warning, if you say “Las Vegas” everyone will laugh at you.
Lasers are used mostly with night-vision equipment, but they are available to civilians in the USA. They are not used in mass shootings or by criminals, that I know of. A laser is no different than any other gun sight, it only helps if you are aiming. Criminals are not known for their aim, and mass shooters do most of their work at point-blank range.
Recoil dampening can be achieved with a suitably designed muzzle brake, this is a civilian modification done on -hunting- rifles and self-defense pistols. Military general issue rifles do not have muzzle brakes.
Some specialized military sniper rifles do, and military rifles of .50 caliber do. Very few on the open market, and very, very expensive. None has -ever- been used in a crime. At all. In history. Look it up.
Recoil dampening can also be achieved by sticking a rubber pad under your jacket. That’s how I used to do it, back in the day. Works just fine. Not much used in robberies either.
You did forget one though, the dreaded silencer. Ooooh! So dangerous! Yes, so dangerous that they BATF, which never makes anything legal if they can help it, is making them legal. So you can look forward to the “deadly silent assassin’s gun” also never being used in a crime. Because they are long, heavy, expensive, and not at all silent.
To repeat sir, you are the victim of a campaign of lies and misdirection that started in the 1930s and has carried forward to this day. Everything you think you know about “military stuff” has been fed to you for decades by the likes of Josh Sugarmann, the professional liar who crafted the term “assault weapon” to fool people like you.
historybuff also said: “my my this is a very sensitive subject. an uninvolved bystander might note the vitriol as opposed to a polite rational debate.”
I’ve been having discussions like this with people like you since about 1989. You have literally no idea what you are talking about, and all you can do is repeat half-remembered sound-bites from the media. You have read nothing, you have zero practical knowledge, and your manners are poor to say the least. “veddy sensitive” indeed.
By contrast, I’ve taken firearms training in the Canadian Armed Forces (which was CRAP by the way) and with a variety of private training companies, I’ve competed in rifle and pistol target shooting, and I’ve read every single scientific paper on guns and gun control printed in the medical literature from 1968 to around 2002. I stopped bothering at that point because they were repeating themselves.
I’ve notices a pattern with people like you, who have no knowledge but feel the need to chastise gun owners anyway. You make broad claims, which are hilariously wrong. Then you pretend offense when people show the gaping holes in your argument. Then you accuse people like myself, who actually know what the hell we’re talking about, of being overly sensitive.
Always. The. Same.
So I’ll tell you what. You go read some books and articles about ballistics, gun construction and general history, then come back here and convince me that military-issue weapons are so fantastically more destructive than plain old civilian hunting guns, even the semi-automatic versions, that they should be banned.
Maybe start by learning what “semi-automatic rifle” actually means. Then once you’ve mastered that technical term, look up “Let one hundred flowers bloom.”
“historybuff,” forsooth. Jeasus wept.
Great reply.
You may be misreading, that is history buff as in Buff Out.
Apply wax liberally and buff out the scratches…
Shiny….Squirrel.
Grew up with guns, father was WW2 vet,tools, nought but tools for which children need to be taught proper use and respect .
Just as dynamite,chainsaws, hammers and knives are tools.
Todays progressives seem to project their own inadequacies on to the rest of us.
Guns kill people.
Damned if I know how, but they keep shrieking this wisdom.
I keep waiting for a redneck comedian to throw a show,where he/she interrogates guns, asking who they killed and how….
I got to get one of these self loading,sentient self propelled guns that the media keep talking about.
Maybe we need to start demanding these reporters tell us where these wonder guns are sold.
What a relief,we do not have to expose ourselves to combat with angry persons any more, our guns can go forth and kill the unpersons all by themselves.
My own are so useless, the lazy hulks just sit where ever I place them and gather dust.
Great point, John. Its like they’re talking about some artificially intelligent superweapon from the future that runs off and murders people all by itself. That would be the full-auto version, I guess.
Semi-auto, you have to hold its hand while it does the murdering? Maybe it can’t manage stairs properly because its little wheels aren’t Military Grade?
It is hard to fathom the tiny mind of an Elmer Fudd.
a good combat soldier can kill you with his bare hands.
Find me any instance of an actual full-auto military issue rifle used in a crime in North America. Anywhere. Ever.
To be fair, Clyde Barrow did use a BAR, three of which where with him when he and Bonnie were killed. Of course that and the other gangsters using Thompsons led to the ban on civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms (absent the Byzantine and expensive licensing procedures, but that, evidently, is beyond the grasp of a history buff.
“…gangsters using Thompsons led to the ban on civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms…”
Not a ban, Ralph. Its a tax. They set the tax at $200, at the time about two years salary for a working man. Machine guns are banned in some -states- of the USA, not others. Federally they require a tax stamp from the BATF, which agency is notoriously slow in issuing. Faster lately, after having been successfully sued several times.
Note that despite the machine gun being legal and -available- in places like Arizona, you had to go allll the way back to Bonnie and Clyde to find a crime committed with a machine gun.
There is a reason for that. Machine guns are expensive, finicky, surprisingly heavy, and require -training- before the shooter can hit anything but sky. Without that training they are arguably less effective than semi-auto. Some noob fires a 20 round magazine, 18 of the rounds go into the ceiling.
The “full-auto assault weapon, designed to be spray fired from the hip” is another Josh Sugarmann invention for consumption by credulous nitwits and Elmer Fudds.