Is the VPC a credible source?

[Withergyld]

The following VPC report pops up here quite often:
"Officer Down"—Assault Weapons and the War on Law Enforcement
http://www.vpc.org/studies/officecont.htm
It makes the following claim:
"at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons."
On this page they list the incident and the weapon used.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/officetwo.htm
14 of the 41 weapons listed may or may not be covered by the current ban depending on the configuration, namely the Mini-14, M1 Carbine and the SKS. The SKS with a fixed magazine is exempted from the proposed law to renew and strengthen the current ban.
They list the source as "FBI Data" The only data from the FBI I can find is here under "Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted"
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
The 1996 report contains data as far back as 1987.
Why did the VPC choose to study only 1998 to 2001 when data is available from 1987 to 2001?
In the report they list 13 specific incidents in which they claim an assault weapon was used to kill an officer. Almost half of these incidents involve one of the three weapons listed above. How did the VPC know if the weapon in question used was configured as an assault rifle? The FBI reports do not provide enough data to answer this question. The specific incidents do contain references to newpaper articles. Using NewsBank, a full text collection of newspaper articles I was able to look up all of the referenced aticles except two. Unfortunately NewsBank is a subscription service. It may be available at some public libraries, and most College/University libraries will have access. This will allow you to view the articles in question. I will list the article reference numbers a little later.
In the April 4th incident the weapon is listed as an SKS, however the referenced articles state that the weapon used was an AK-47. See articles Detroit News det9556483 and Detroit Free Press 0201160274. In this case the VPC has mis-identified the weapon. In the 5 other examples listed the articles do not give enough information to determine if the Mini-14, M1 Carbine or SKS used was an assault weapon. See the following articles: The Columbian 1998028027 and 1998027088, Denver Post 716844 and 716840, Austin American Statesman 0000109785 and 00000497537, Lexington Herald Leader 0200650014 and 0111150172.
Based on the sources listed by the VPC not enough information is available to suport their claim. Since their claim cannot be verified using the sources they list, their claim is unsubstantiated.

This means their whole report is suspect and most likely a "bunch of hooey" intended to sway the opinion of people who are ignorant about firearms and too lazy to verify the facts themselves.

[MrBenchley]

1. Compared to whom?

I consider the source, and say "Yup, the VPC is a credible source."

[demsrule4life]

2. Go to the source

Officer down memorial page. List's all the police officers killed in the line of duty since the beginning of our country. I know two personally on this site, neither one killed by an "assault rifle". WWW.odmp.org

[CO Liberal]

3. I Believe They Are More Credible......

...than Wayne LaPierre's Nuts Ruining America (NRA)or Larry Pratt's Goons, Oafs, and Assholes (GOA).

[demsrule4life]

5. The Barrett 50 has been for sale to civilians

now for twenty years. Up to about a year ago you never heard of them. All of a sudden VPC is giving suggestions how they can be used, shooting down aircraft, picking off politicians at 2000 yards and so on. The guns have never been used for that, but lets give thanks to the VPC for putting the idea out there.

[MrBenchley]

8. Too TOO funny, Dems...

Now here's what Air Safety Week has to say on the subject....

[demsrule4life]

9. At this time by use of civilians

still a fictional story.

[MrBenchley]

11. Gee, dems...

pardon me if I don't want to wait until some Tim McVeigh wannabe decides to deliver another "wake-up call."

[demsrule4life]

13. I missed that story

How many airliners did old Tim shoot down?

[MrBenchley]

15. Gee, Tim hung out for years among gun nuts

at gun shows...and didn't seem any crazier than the rest of them...

[slackmaster]

122. How would you know?

Since you have repeatedly admitted, no, proudly proclaimed that you have never been to a gun show.

[MrSandman]

123. Reviewing security tapes?

[alwynsw]

87. And just how many firearms were in that truck?

And all this time I thought it was ammonium nitrate fertilizer and #2 diesel. Silly me.

[alwynsw]

105. Presupposing guilt?

Not according to my Constitution.

[Frodo_Baggins]

113. One quesiton

How do you HIT a 747 with a .50?

[slackmaster]

121. Red Herring

[DonP]

10. Looks like Dems was absolutely right

Tom Diaz, Sara Brady's number 2 is giving detailed instructions on exactly where to aim to cripple an airliner.

Are there any other publications with that kind of detailed instruction available? Or is it just your repuke buddies at the VPC handing out the details of how to be a terrorist?

[MrBenchley]

12. Too too funny.....

Hard to get more desperate than this new bit of spin from the RKBA crowd...

Reminds me of that right wing asswipe LaPierre trying to blame Clinton for the white supremacist's shooting spree.

"Byrdsong was shot to death last summer by a white supremacist who had failed a Brady background check but was not arrested; LaPierre said lax law enforcement by the Clinton administration was to blame.
In a letter to President Clinton, Byrdsong's widow, Sherialyn, called LaPierre's comments ``appalling.''
``I certainly do not in any way think my husband's blood is on your hands,'' she wrote, ``and I applaud your efforts.''

http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/2000-03/03202000NRA.asp

[DonP]

22. "spin"

You post a document that has Tom Diaz quoted with details on where to shoot at an airliner to disable it most effectively and we're spinning?

Where is the spin in your own posted article?

I just asked you to let us know where the RKBA people have done the same kind of "public service"? Obviously you don't have anything or you would have already posted it.

As stated before, these rifles have been around for years and no one outside of the shooting community had even heard of them until your repuke buddies Sara, Jim and Tom started issuing press releases and articles on how to use them to shoot airplanes up or assasinate people.

Then your Repuke media buddies started publishing their drivel and crap every chance they get to keep the fear at a fever pitch to generate those donations for Sara.

[MrBenchley]

23. Gee, Don, you don't read too good....

The details are in the report from Air Safety Week, a newsletter for air safety professionals...who obviously think the VPC has a lot of credibility....despite the silly mutterings of the RKBA "enthusaists" here. But then they're not desperately trying to prop up the corrupt gun industry.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/catalog/info?ASW

"these rifles have been around for years and no one outside of the shooting community had even heard of them"
Guess you're counting Osama as part of that community.

"Then your Repuke media buddies started publishing their drivel and crap"
Who would that be, Don? Rupert Murdoch? the Reverend Moon?

[DonP]

24. I read just fine, try comprehension

of your own posting.

"Tom Diaz, author of the report"

Now if it said Tom Diaz, quoting a report by the NRA, you might have a point, but it's their HCI drivel and instruction sheet on how to blow up an airplane.

[MrBenchley]

26. Obviously, you don't....

The details are in the Air Safety News account, which clearly knows its readers....

--understand that these details you're trying to make a fuss over are pretty much apparent to everybody
--give credibility to the VPC report.

If you want to pretend it's drivel, it says more about you than the VPC...especially since you seem utterly unable to distinguish the difference between Air Safety News and a VPC report.

[DonP]

27. Utterly incapable of grasping the fact, huh?

Yes, the article is in Air Safety News and it is ignorantly quoting a pseudo report by Tom Diaz.

Just forget it. Your rants and obfuscation are not going to affect my nice weekend.

I'm going shooting this weekend and so are a bunch of other DU folks. That's the ultimate effect you have Benchley. You do perform a great service on behalf of RKBA though.

You annoy and insult people to the point that they remember why the gun rights we still have are so important to all of us. And no matter how much you spin it there are a lot more of us than there are of you.

We'll put a few hundred rounds down range on behalf of all the ignorant out there in the hope that at some point they will wake up and smell the cordite, or in this case Hogdon TiteGroup.

You opinions, approvals et. al. are not required and thankfully fewer and fewer people share your restricted view.

Now you'll excuse me if some of us go out and compensate for our very small penii with our favorite phallic Milsurp hardware.

Have a swell holiday.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

30. Few hundred rounds?

Speak for yourself!

I'll vouch for several hundred rounds myself. Someone needs to put up a tally of rounds expended as a direct result of anti's for this weekend.

[DonP]

31. That's a few hundred for him

The other thousand or so are for myself.

I'm trying out some new reloads in my "92 .45 LC saddle ring carbine at 100 yards, before Diaz and Brady decide what kind of new threat Cowboy Action Shooting is to America and what they can sell to make a buck off people's paranoia.

... and of course the EBR M4gery will be out and working as well, to cover the other end of the timeline. I'm trying to decide if I really want to have a nice $$$ Harris bipod on it or just live with the cheapie clip-on I'm using now.

Damn, I'm just gonna have some fun out there and I'll try my best not to go on a crazed rampage of any sort. The best revenge is living well and there are far more shooters than anti's out there.

Have a great weekend and enjoy the holiday and the range time.

[beevul]

33. Reloads going after the turkey is eaten

250 - 500 handloads : 5.8 grain unique, winchester JHP180 grain bulkies.

I'll shoot all of them in the name of the anti-gun crowd.

I'll have to let the daughters know, they'll likely want to go to wallyworld for a couple thousand 22 shells, as they both enjoy shooting. We have a free outdoor range here. *GRIN*:)


Enjoy the holiday, and shoot safely.:)

[Superfly]

32. Don, Couldn't have said it better myself...

by their definition: Liberal=more rights, less government involvement, unless we're talking about RKBA. Then, why doesn't somebody think of the children?

[MrBenchley]

38. Too too funny, Don

The Air Safety News people don't know what they're talking about when they're discussing air safety, but a handful of desperate "enthusiasts" in this forum do... so I guess you're conceding that the VPC was credible to those air safety professionals.

Ho-kay.

"You annoy and insult people to the point that they remember why the gun rights we still have are so important to all of us."
You mean by pointing out what sort of people are peddling that "gun rights" crap in public. Nice playmates you got, Don.

"And no matter how much you spin it there are a lot more of us than there are of you."
Yeah, we can tell by the NRA's enemies list...or the half-dozen "pro-gun" Democrats you were able to dredge up...or the way trolls from other sites come sneaking in here under fake names..

"We'll put a few hundred rounds down range on behalf of all the ignorant out there in the hope that at some point they will wake up and smell the cordite...you'll excuse me if some of us go out and compensate for our very small penii with our favorite phallic Milsurp hardware."
Too too funny...

[MrSandman]

112. Iced coffee on the keyboard

[Frodo_Baggins]

114. If Wayne LaPierre drops of a cliff tomorrow

The world will be happier.

[Superfly]

14. We should get a head start and start banning

phaser guns and photon torpedoes, because they might be used to shoot down commercial aviation.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Superfly]

20. You don't listen too good, do you Bench?

I've had you on ignore for quite some time now, and yet you respond to my posts....:shrug:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

25. It's a public forum, fly

Ask me next if I care who's hiding behind "ignore."

[1a2b3c]

29. Actually Boeing is working on a laser that shoots down planes

Maybe we should add laser guns to the ban list before they make it big. :-)

[Frodo_Baggins]

118. And no gun laws apply to it

It's not a firearm. Just like flamethrowers.

[Romulus]

18. civilian first, *then* militarized

once again, the VPC gets its facts wrong.

Anthony Swofford, author of Jarhead, the NYT bestseller about his time as a Marine scout-sniper in the Iraq War I, details how the USMC didn't give .50 cal rifles to snipers until the eve of the war.

The USMC weapons people had noticed the civilian rifle's potential and went out and bought some to see if it could be used by the military. Swofford detailed the problems with initial deployment as a military weapon, namely (1) no suitable scopes for a .50 cal rifle, (2) civilian magazines that were too flimsy for military use, and (3) overall flimsy civilian standards in the rifle finishing that needed militarization to withstand abuse.

Read the book and see. I'll take the word of the guy who was there and experienced it over someone who wasn't/didn't, and who has an agenda to push.

[Tinfoil]

34. Considering an A300

just got whacked by an SA-7 surface to air missle a few days ago and the crew still managed to bring the aircraft back (barely, lost all 3 hydraulic systems and had to do a 220kt no flap landing and overran the runway at slow speed), I'm not too worried about some yahoo with a semi-auto 50cal shooting at me.

B-17s used to come back from Germany with hundreds of these 50cal holes in them.

I'm more worried about sucking in a couple of Canadian Geese in my engines than dodging small arms fire from a bolt action or semi-auto rifle.


BTW: That whole "sever the power feeder cable from the generator to cause an arc and then shoot a hole in the wing tank to spill fuel on it" from that article is a load of shit if I've ever seen one. It wouldn't even work.

[slackmaster]

120. Maybe I'm losing my mind due to advanced age, but

I don't see anything indicating that Air Safety Week has an opinion of their own on the issue. The article cited here is simply quoting someone else's opinion. It looks to me like Air Safety Week thought the issue interesting enough to their readers to be worthy of publication, but nowhere here does it say they agree with the Violence Policy Center's assessment of the alleged threat posed by 50-caliber rifles.

[1a2b3c]

28. By saying they are more credible

What you are really saying is that they are both full of shit, its just that one persons shit smells similar to yours, since you have a closely related opinion to that of the VPC.

[papau]

4. VPC FBI stats are from DOJ Stats area - and yes - it is credible.

The fellow that "runs" the Department of Justice stats work - and is on call to the media when the DOJ's latest political appointee makes any stat announcement - is a friend of mine for 30 years - and is a straight arrow with no agenda pro or anti gun.

Where there is error, it is in the original FBI reporting.

A constant problem is getting local police - and the FBI - to use the definitions provided by DOJ for the words used in the surveys that gather the data.

[Withergyld]

6. If the information can't be verified how can it be credible??

The FBI lists weapon types as handgun, rifle or shotgun. It does not identify any weapons as "assault weapons". The newspaper articles referenced do not provide enough information to determine the weapons in question were "assault weapons". How was the VPC able to conclusively determine if a weapon is an assault weapon without evidence???

[kbelzner]

82. Reports from NRA or VPC, does it matter which?

Not really. If the researcher performed an experiment, then others should be able to verify by repeating the experiment and getting essentially the same results. If the researcher gathered and analyzed statistics, then others should be able to check the original sources, run the nubmers through a calculator, and get the same results. If the researcher conducted interviews or examined original period documents, then others should be able to verify by interviewing those same witnesses or consulting those same original period documents.

Here is my problem with the VPC. I read their report "Officer Down: Assault Weapons and the War on Law Enforcement."
http://www.vpc.org/studies/officecont.htm

No where in this report do they define the term "assault weapon." They throw the term out there, conflate "assault weapon" with "assault rifle," and then make unverifiable claims about the number of police officers killed by someone wielding an "assault weapon." They can't state how they collected the information or determined how a certain weapon was or was not an "assault weapon."

Elsewhere on the VPC site I finally came across a description - but not really a definition - of an "assault weapon." http://tinyurl.com/xmyr
The VPC states that "assault weapons" have two characterstics. They accept "high-capacity" magazines (holding ten or more round), and they have features "that make it easy to point (as opposed to carefully aim) while rapidly pulling the trigger."

Why ten rounds? Why not eleven rounds? Or 6 rounds? Sounds somewhat arbitrary.

Speaking as a gun owner, I have yet to encounter a gun on the civilian market that I did not have to carefully aim, regardless of what kind of grip(s) it had. The proper procedure for aiming a rifle is the same regardless of whether one is using an AR-15 or a Remington 700.
http://tinyurl.com/xmzy
The VPC claims that "assault weapons" are designed to be used by "spray-firing" from the hip, which the VPC claims is "a widely recognized technique for the use of assault weapons..." Pardon me, but can anyone name any rifle instructors who teaches this technique? No, they can't, because *no one* teaches this supposedly "widely recognized technique." How could anyone make such a stupid statement? Does their information come from watching Hollywood Rambo movies perhaps?

Those of use who know better read these kinds of ludicrous claims on the VPC site and have a good belly-laugh.

[Superfly]

7. I discount anything published by the VPC as vehemently

as I do from the MMM, Brady Inc, NRA, etc.

[slackmaster]

17. Negative

All one has to do is look at the motivation of the VPC:

Every journey through the VPC Web site ends with an opportunity for the viewer to BUY something - Printed materials, videotapes, posters, etc.

The VPC preys on fear by perpetuating and selling propaganda.

[Spoonman]

19. How could anyone

with an IQ over 10 believe them after it's been proven they've publish false stats and information.
If your willing to believe anything they publish you would have to be stupid enough to believe John Lott as well, cause their both guilty of the same statistical frauds!

[demsrule4life]

35. The vote is in

VPC is not a credible source.

[MrBenchley]

36. Yes the vote is in...

The air safety professionals think the VPC is a credible source, as do many other sane people...and a handful of desperate "enthusiasts" do not.

[Tinfoil]

37. That article

was written with as much "spray from the hip" sensationalism as the average VPC crap-release.

[MrBenchley]

40. Gee,

sane people take the threat of these weapons seriously...

I feel your pain (snicker)...

[demsrule4life]

42. And only an insane person sees a problem

where there isnt any.

[MrBenchley]

43. You mean like Air Safety News?

Hahahahahahahaha....

[Tinfoil]

46. As an airline captain,

I take the safety of my aircraft and my passengers very seriously. Like I said, I'm more worried about being downed by a couple of Canadian Geese sucked into the engines than I am of someone shooting at me with a .50 cal rifle.

[demsrule4life]

39. The air safety professionals can give credit

to the VPC for teaching people how to shoot down aircraft. Seems to me when it comes to this thread or any other thread here is the vocal minority is you.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

45. Air Safety Week

"...the only award-winning newsletter devoted exclusively to news and analysis of aviation safety. You'll get timely coverage of key safety issues, FAA regulations, and NTSB investigations. Learn about trends in aviation law, and news and analysis of aviation safety technology. Look to the source recognized by the National Press Club and the Society of Professional Journalists as the leading aviation safety resource published today. "

http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/catalog/info?ASW

Course, don't worry, Dems, you got John AshKKKroft, David Duke and Ted Nugent on your side...just point to their sanity and credibility.

[Tinfoil]

47. Don't give them that much credit, dems

They aren't talking about shooting down an airplane, they're talking about shooting on sitting on the taxiway. There's a reason machine guns that shoot 6,000rpm are used to try to down aircraft. You can't do it with one bullet.

FWIW, if you shoot the "generator connection cables" or whatever the hell the article said, you know what will happen? Nothing. The Generator Control Unit will pull the gen offline to prevent the shorting that is described in the article. If a fire errupted, it wouldn't destroy the landing gear. Planes have burned completely and still been sitting on their gear.

Besides, what's the big deal with the .50 cal? The damage done by a .50cal can easily be done by a .338 laupa (however you spell it) and if the .50 cal was banned, I'd be willing to bet a .498 "Up Yours" would be coming out shortly thereafter.

[beevul]

49. Quality!!!

"a .498 "Up Yours"

Made my day!!:)

[Fescue4u]

48. VPC is an extremist organization devoted to destroying

some of our civil rights.

How CAN they be credible, when there very basis of existance is not?

[MrBenchley]

51. Who are you trying to kid, fescue?

There's nothing extremist about VPC.....

The charge is especially funny considering that in the past couple weeks the RKBA crowd has tried to pass off Newsmax and Leroy Pyle as credible sources...

[Fescue4u]

53. Any group that attacks civil rights

Is Extremist.

[beevul]

50. To quote a

"Is the VPC a credible source?"-Withergyld

To quote a fictional scottsman whom I became fond of over the years:

"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon"-Montgomery Scott

[hansberrym]

52. The VPC is not credible.

Consider the VPC in "Deconstructing Ashcroft". It engages in just the type of sleight of hand that it accuses Ascroft of committing.

(quoting the VPC in Ashcroft Deconstructed)
Ashcroft cites Federalist 46, written by James Madison, which discusses the relative powers of the federal and state governments, not individual rights. It addresses the subject of an armed citizenry only in conjunction with the possible need to protect the political power of the states from the reach of the federal government.
(endquote)


Both of these statements by the VPC are misleading at best, if not calculated half-truths and outright lies. The VPC selectively quotes from Federalist 46 to support its premise, but a complete reading of that essay would reveal the sleights of hand and falsehoods containred in each of the above statements.


According to the VPC, “Federalist 46, written by James Madison, which discusses the relative powers of the federal and state governments, not individual rights.”, but a further reading of that paper reveals the whole truth. At the outset of that paper Madison lays out his reason for writing which is summed up by the first quote below. (see first quote below)

Towards the end of that multi-page essay Madison again reminds the reader that the rights of the people are indeed part of the discussion. Note that Madison is referring to individual rights and not collective rights. (see second quote below)

(Quotes from Federalist 46)
"The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authority of each other. These gentlemen need to be reminded of their error."

“Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.”
(end quotes)




The second statement by the VPC is equallly misleading: "It addresses the subject of an armed citizenry only in conjunction with the possible need to protect the political power of the states from the reach of the federal government"

(The VPC quotes from Federalist 46)
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms in Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone, they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.32
Arming and training the people to defend their government through a disciplined militia cannot be accomplished solely by a militia that is unconnected to any local government entity. Nowhere does this essay discuss arming people for individual self-defense: Madison limits his remarks to the discussion of arming people so that they may defend the governments of their respective states.
(end quote)


The VPC correctly points out that there is no mention of individual self defense in the above citation, but then the VPC goes on to make the blatantly false claim that “Madison limits his remarks to the discussion of arming people so that they may defend the governments of their respective states”.


Note that Madison discusses the existence of local governments as an ADDITIONAL ADVANTAGE of the people; that is IN ADDITION TO being armed. It is the people who shake off “their” yokes, and the people are defending their own rights.

There is no discussion of "arming people" in the Federalist 46.
Madison writes : " a militia amounting to nearly a half milion citizens with arms in their hands" and " Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the peoples of almost every other nation,...", but nowhere in this essay does Madison write that any government would provide arms to the people.


Furthermeore the VPC gets the dependency backwards. Madison makes it clear that the state governments are dependent on the support of the people for the state governments' defense. If the people do not support the states, the federal government will prevail.

[MrBenchley]

54. Not even close to true, hans

but it was pretty funny...

"Note that Madison discusses the existence of local governments as an ADDITIONAL ADVANTAGE of the people; that is IN ADDITION TO being armed."
Is THAT why three quarters of the essay is about the relative strengths of the local and federal government?

The only mention of arms in 46 is in the context of our collective militia in defense of a state.

[hansberrym]

73. What is funny, is that you align yourself with, in Madison's words,

" the adversaries of the Constitution" who "need to be reminded of their error".

Please answer this question:
If being armed is an additional advantage to the people (the existence of the state governments being the other advantage) how can the people being armed be dependent on defending the state?



(Quoting MrBenchley)
"The only mention of arms in 46 is in the context of our collective militia in DEFENSE OF A STATE." (my emphasis on your spin)
(end quote)

Wrong- the people "defend the rights of which they were in actual possession" in one case, and the people "fight for thier common liberties" in another mention of what is being defended/fought for.



I can understand the Fascists making the claim that the people only have a right to defend the state. But why do you buy into that crap?

The founding principle of this country is that "We the people" set up governments in order to better protect our own freedoms. Governments are not instituted among men so that the people can defend the governments. The VPC has got it exactly backwards.

[MrBenchley]

76. Not even close to true, hans...

But thanks for playing "what's my RKBA fantasy"

[hansberrym]

81. Be specific, which statement was incorrect? And Why?

[hansberrym]

75. Is "three quarters" the whole truth in your book?

If three quarters of that essay suports your argument, are you justified in ignoring the other 25% which disproves for your argument?

What does "additional advantage" mean if not in addition to having arms?

[MrBenchley]

77. Who are you tryinng to kid, Hans?

The whole essay supports my argument exactly...and three quarters of it has nothing at all to do with arms or the militia.....

[hansberrym]

78. If that were true you would have answered the questions

asked of you in post #73.


But you don't have answers. At least none that support your argument.


To paraphrase Mr. Madison:

MrBenchley seems to have lost sight of the people altogether in his reasonnings on this subject, and needs to be reminded of his error.

[MrBenchley]

79. Not even close to true, hans.....

But thanks for the laugh.

[hansberrym]

80. The closer we get to the truth, the less you have to say.

[MrBenchley]

83. Actually, what more needs to be said?

You dredge up Federalist 46, almost none of which deals with arms...(and the brief mention of arms in 46 is clearly in the context of our collective militia in defense of a state)....

Then you want to pretend that the rest of 46 deals with individual ownership of guns (when the essay is about the relative strengths of the local and federal government)...

[hansberrym]

84. Show me where I said that..

(quoting MrBenchley)
"Then you want to pretend that the rest of 46 deals with individual ownership of guns "
(end quote)



I did show you where Madison was quite clear in WHO was defending WHAT (The people defending their own rights, and their common liberties)


And I showed you where Madison refered to persons making your argument

( quoting MrB "when the essay is about the relative strengths of the local and federal government" )

as having "lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject..." , and "must here be reminded of thier error".

[hansberrym]

85. Something more than a Bare Naked assertion would be a welcome change

(quoting Benchley)
"the brief mention of arms in 46 is clearly in the context of our collective militia in defense of a state"
(end quote)


The militia that Madison describes is

" a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in THEIR hands, officered by men chosen from among THEMSELVES, fighting for THEIR COMMON LIBERTIES and united and conducted by governments possessing THEIR affections and confidence." (my emphasis)

1) THEIR, THEMSELVES indicate plural form, therefor as individuals

2) Fighting for their common liberties ( = what THEY are defending)

3) "A militia near half a million" note Madison is referring to A
militia, not many states militias. And near a half million men
could not be from any one state, so it is clearly NOT a reference
to a "State militia" as Honest Abe Reinhardt would have us
believe.

4)"United and conducted by governments" -Note that they are not
armed by the government, only organized. The only powers in
regard to the militia left to the states in the Constitution was
organizing and appointing officers. The existence of
subordinate governments aids the people in defending their
liberties. But if you want to argue that the people exist to
defend the state be my guest.

In Judge Reinhardt's view Divine Providence has given the states
the people, and the state may arm them and use them in the
state's defence. (smells a lot like Fascism)

Madison and the rest of the founder's saw it differently. The
people have god-given rights, and they form governments to
help defend their (the people's) own rights.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

56. Where's that?

Places where the "Gospel Plow" is seen as the right wing crap it is?

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

58. In other words, the sane world...

"without evil there would be no good."
Too TOO funny coming from somebody who tried to pass off "gospelplow" as a credible source, and has been trying desperately to spin away Larry Pratt's open racism.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

60. Yeah, I do

But then I'm not trying to stick up for a racist piece of shit like Larry Pratt...or pretending that letting the gun industry arm criminals is "freedom.."

[a2birdcage]

61. The gun industry is arming criminals?

Can you please provide some proof that the industry is doing this? And please provide consistent proof that the same company is doing it over and over again. Not some shithole gunshop with a crooked owner who got busted................but the actual industry itself (manufacturing).

[MrBenchley]

63. Sure can....

What do you think the fight over the gun show loophole is, birdcage?

[demsrule4life]

64. That was not his question

Is S&W, Browning, Beretta, H&K, Colt, Ruger, Remington,Savage, Wilson, Baer, STI, Auto Ordanance, Marlin and all the others out on the streets selling guns to criminals?

[MrBenchley]

66. The hell it wasn't....

[a2birdcage]

67. The "Dodger" strikes again!

[MrBenchley]

68. Too too funny...

[a2birdcage]

69. I'm glad I can make you laugh Dodger!

[MrBenchley]

70. All of your serious posts do, birdcage...

It's especially funny to see people who take the "United Sportsmen" seriously making a silly fuss about the VPC's credibility.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

72. Gee birdcage

There's sure enough bitching about my posts to fill a bucket....

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[a2birdcage]

65. What do I think it is?

It's an illusion created in your mind. It's actually called the private sales loophole, Bench!

Edited to Add: By the way thanks for answering my question. I'm going to start calling you "The Dodger" because that's all you do. When asked to present facts so that I can take your statement seriously you "dodge".

[a2birdcage]

62. Whaaaa! Whaaaa!

They insulted me. YASF!

[DoctorWho]

86. VPC ?

No, the VPC is not a good sourse of objective information,
lots of distortion,
if a Criminal kills a victim, or a victim kills a Criminal,
its all the same to the VPC,
but that is not the truth, far from it, its a fabrication.
VPC is in the business of banning Guns.

[slackmaster]

108. Close but not quite the real purpose of the VPC

The VPC's actual business model is to sell gun-ban propaganda to people dumb enough to buy it. Every journey through the VPC Web site ends at a place to give them your credit card number.

[CO Liberal]

109. And The Real Purpose Of The Nuts Ruining America...

is to sell pro-gun propaganda to people dumb enough to buy it. And there seem to be so many of them.....

[slackmaster]

110. I own one book that was published by the NRA

The Instructor's Guide to their Rifle Marksmanship course.

Not a hint of propaganda anywhere in the book. It's all about safety and shooting technique.

Nice attempt at thread-jacking BTW.

[jhfenton]

111. Have you been taking lessons from MrBenchly...

on anti-gun owner rhetoric?

Let's see how many names can you indirectly call me in one post and get away with it.

"Nuts"
"dumb"

Only two in that post. I'm sure you can do better next time.

[Withergyld]

88. Another inconsistency found in the VPC report

The VPC lists an officer from MD as being killed with an assault weapon. The officer was wounded in 1977!

[CO Liberal]

89. For That, You Resurrected a 2-Month-old Thread?????

You guys are really grasping at straws here......

[Withergyld]

90. That was one reason ...

The other reason is the credibility of the VPC is being re-hashed in another thread, so for those that missed the earlier debate, it will be easier to find the previous debate.

[demsrule4life]

91. The link police, which board to you post on police

and now the age of a thread police.

[MrBenchley]

93. Sad and desperate, isn't it?

Let's not forget that every RKBA source turns out to be dishonest crap dredged out of some right wing cesspool....

[Withergyld]

95. It IS sad and desperate ...

for someone to cling to the belief that the VPC has any credibility, after all that has been shown to be incorrect or misleading in the 1 in 5 LEO killed report. I trust the VPC as much as I trust Mary Rosh

[MrBenchley]

97. Yeah, but consider the source....

Look at the stuff you DO believe, with....you still pretend the AWB is unconstitutional.

[Withergyld]

98. I'm not pretending anything

It IS Unconstitutional
The following is why I feel the AWB is unconstitutional:

Firstly the Second Amendment states that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Some claim that this is an individual right, some a collective right that belongs to the "militia." We will come back to the collective/individual thing in a minute. Lets look at Title 10 Section 301 of the United States Code. It contains a definition of who is in the "militia."
Quote:
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia


The narrowest reading of the 2nd Amendment confers the right to keep and bear arms to the "militia." "All able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and ... under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States" are members of the "militia."

Therefore any male between 17 and 45 has the right to keep and bear arms.

The AWB infringes on this right

[MrBenchley]

101. I rest my case....

[Columbia]

103. So you agree?

Welcome to the pro-freedom, pro-rights family known as gun rights advocates Bench! Glad to see you finally converted!

:toast:

[Withergyld]

104. Thanks for agreeing with me.

:freak:

[RoeBear]

116. That's how I saw it too...

...."I rest my case" is like someone saying "I have no more arguement, you win"

[MrBenchley]

92. In a word, YES....

[Withergyld]

94. What a pantload

:freak:

[MrBenchley]

96. Yup, that's what RKBA posts often are

a big steaming pantload...and this thread was no exception.

[Withergyld]

99. The truth!

I don't need to rely on VPC garbage to support my opinion. Gun Grabbers like the VPC and their supporters rely on lies and distortion to scare the uninformed into believing them. Have you taken the time to look up the articles the VPC cites for sources to thier "report"??? I have, I did not take thier word for it, I researched it myself. They are incorrect.

[MrBenchley]

100. The truth is, VPC is credible

[Withergyld]

102. only to those that are too lazy to verify the veracity of thier claims.

:freak:

[MrBenchley]

107. Orr those who know the difference

between truth and lies.

[Withergyld]

115. try to verify their research yourself, the you will see they are lying.

:hi:

[MrSandman]

117. Lyning from the VPC?

I am shocked, shocked I say.

[Frodo_Baggins]

119. The VPC lies

Birds fly
Dogs bark
Nothing new.

[slackmaster]

106. Ipse Dixit

One logical fallacy on top of another.