The Wiki entry on "Assault weapon" has been edited just this Month. To remove the name & organization of the guy who invented the term, out of whole cloth, for the PURPOSE of lying to you about guns. It'a now an anti-rights screed with just a few hints of the truth, presented as crazy talk.
I keep telling people Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia. It's a slow open blog and politicians frequently hire folk to cleanse their pages of scandal and filth.
So, YES, they are ignorant of guns, ignorant of the technology of the 20th century, much less this one. That doesn't matter, they answer to a higher calling.
And most important, they believe, as a matter of faith, that it is a blessing to lie to you if it gains them power.
And, if you point out some "minor technical error" they will excuse it as imperfect law, but the intent is clearly there. Oddly "shall not be infringed" has no clear intent to them.
If you press the fact that they speak untruths they will always go to personal attack, on THIS subject, they call you insane. For a REASON. insane people shouldn't have guns and by Satan's Balls, are NOT entitled to an opinion on them.
Be careful, your children are told to inform on you and told to lie to you about it.
Your health care folk are required by law to report your answer on your "health" survey.
Someone mentioned to me recently that a dictionary had "assault rifle" as a semi-automatic or automatic rifle. As I mentioned that it's actually an intermediate caliber select fire rifle they ignored me because the dictionary must be right.
An individual buying a handgun was lamenting the uselessness of the scary black rifles in the gunshop. I explained that the lawful uses for an AR-15 are the same as that of any other rifle and that the fundamental function of the gun was no different than the semi automatic handgun he was buying. The retort was that nobody needed that kind of power. I explained that .223/5.56 is traditionally a varmint cartridge as well as the smallest readily available centerfire caliber. Most any off the shelf bolt action rifle will be more powerful and more accurate. He told me he had never looked at it that way. Of course not. The bombardment of ignorant gun controller sentiment is rampant.
"Weapon of war" they say...well most anything has been at one point or another, though that's still technically incorrect.
It would be interesting if they ever tried to shoot up the NRA headquarters. Kind of the antithesis of what most shooters do; shooting up a gun free zone. It's almost certain that they would be getting return fire very quickly.
I thought NRA headquarters was a "gun free zone" but then found this. No clue if it's accurate.
I have wondered recently whether the NRA has the courage of its convictions, and what their reaction might be if its headquarters were to be targeted by misguided gun enthusiasts. So I called the NRA HQ today to get answers that might obliquely shed some light. I couched my questions in the form of a bet between myself and a friend of mine who is into guns, (part of his business is ceramic powder coating of firearms), somewhat conservative, but not political. I have no use for weapons myself, but am not adamantly anti-gun, and actually am fascinated by the mechanisms of weapons, being somebody who does a lot of mechanical design. Some of the designs are quite elegant. I do disapprove of the excesses of gun ownership i.e., arsenals of high capacity, rapid fire firearms, and cheap handguns.
So I called the only phone number for the NRA on the internet---the membership number, of course. I finally got to an operator who connected me to the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. I asked the woman who picked up (after I outlined the situation) whether staff members were allowed to carry firearms in the HQ offices, or store them in their desks. She said, 'Of course. This is Virginia, and it is a concealed carry state, so, yes, staff can carry weapons at work. We follow the law.' But when I asked whether visitors could enter the building with weapons, she clammed up, saying that as an employee, she could not answer the question. But she did give me a direct HQ number, (703) 267-1000, and told me to ask for security.
Which I did. I finally was connected to the public affairs department and spoke to a pleasant woman there. I told her my friend thought the NRA should allow visitor weapons, to be logically consistent, and that I disagreed, with the view that you can't always trust gun owners to act safely and that it would be dumb to assume visitors' goodwill. And that there was a six pack of beer riding on her answer. She told me that the security guards at the front desk were unarmed, but that visitors were not allowed to bring weapons into the building (except to their posh firing range, which has a separate entrance). Doesn't that leave the visitors at a bit of an disadvantage, I asked, and we had a bit of a chuckle about that. I was too chicken to ask her whether that policy was inconsistent with the NRA's present philosophy that seems to encourage shoot-outs.
So there you have it. The NRA staff is armed, while visitors are disarmed.
Somebody here, I think, recently commented that the best means to counter the NRA would be ridicule. I hope that this little bit of fact-finding might contribute materials to those mocking the NRA.
Don't bother jumping over the fancy orange pastry; there's nothing there.
UPDATE: 5/20/2014 Markass informs me that what I discovered in the diary above is presently not true (and appears to be suggesting it never was). I assure you that at the time 18 months or so ago, I did spend the time calling whom I said I did, and reported what I was told truthfully and fully. Their policies may have changed in the meantime, or I may have been misled or their left hand doesn't know what their right hand is doing (if they even have a 'left' hand, or just two right hands). Anyway, thank you Markass for checking. My info may be out of date.
The anti-gunners like to use the "advocating shoot-outs" in response to the NRA merely arguing for people's natural, civil and constitutionally protected rights to defend themselves against armed attackers.
If you ever confront someone who tries this argument, respond with something along the lines of -
"I'd much rather find myself caught in the middle of a shoot-out than a massacre." That's hard for most to disagree with (unless, of course, they're the special kind of stupid that thinks that a total 'gun-ban' would prevent all shooting incidents. Hey - there are moonbats everywhere).
In Texas, it would be very easy to determine whether they allow open or concealed carry. If they do not, they have to have a great big sign by the front door. The act of declining to put up the sign signals your intention to allow carry on your property.
"Just who does the left think should march into cities like St. Paul, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Atlanta, Dallas, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York, and take the guns away from the gang bangers. Just how would that be accomplished without a massive loss of life? Does anybody really think that a phalanx of body-armored paramilitary police can accomplish this in even one city?"
That would certainly target who is doing a huge majority of the killing. Taking guns from the law-abiding people would have negligible effect.
This morning on the really old super liberal lady show on NPR, which is an echo chamber of group think, they opined that Now, at last, the time has come when the Party can finally push through the end of civil rights and take your guns away.
They complained that previously some cowardly Democrat party politicians wouldn't vote to take away your rights because their horrible, stupid, and irrelevant Voters didn't like having their rights erased from history.
But not any more.
They complained that Barry failed to take away your civil rights when he had a supermajority in Congress, but when Hillary gets appointed President, that will end.
They figure Hillary will have the House and Senate, unlimited power, and can ban all citizen's rights.
They could be right.
Of course her "guests" lied constantly about crime, reality and how freaking EVIL all you gun nut terrorist freaks are. And they ALL agreed.
I'm not kidding or even gilding this lily. I'm just translating from National Propaganda Radio speak to English.
Look at the Japanese aristocracy. Their Samurai were allowed swords, no one else.
There's a reason many Asian martial arts weapons are farm tools. Nunchacku, a rice flail. Little scythes, rice cutters. Etc.
Medieval Europe had laws against well armed peasants especially those of different religions.
Most American anti rights laws date from Civil War racism to this day. All these screw the peasant laws hurt the poor and minorities most. And that's deliberate, not accidental.
Since WW2 the emphasis has been on disarmament of all law abiding citizens with the rise of Soviet influence in the Klan Party.
It's not a coincidence that pro-aristocracy regressive politicians vote to disarm the peasants/masses and reflect in their attitudes the Above The Common Scum mindset that has justified slavery and secret police for thousands of years.
Consider that the President was raised in a pro-slavery religion, then chose to associate with anti-western communist theocratic radicals in college. Had his career in politics start in the home of a communist-anarchist terrorist who has publicly stated his only regret was he wanted to kill more Pigs.
Knowing the above facts is there any question why Obama often spouts anti-cop crap and consistently wants you disarmed?
It's so obvious to many that more guns have been purchased in anticipation of the onrushing Soviet style crackdown on rights than in decades before Barry.
Truth is an impediment to these people. Lies are the heart of the American Alinskyite faith.
Hillary has been an acolyte of that demonic faith since college. Read her thesis.