"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:20:21 -0400, Jeff Harper
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Right, the problem with Kerry's approach there is that he was trying to
imply that because Bush fits a definition of "small business owner",
then the tax cuts for small businesses would typically benefit
only people like Bush. This is disingenuous at best (how surprising,
Kerry stretching the truth).

Right? You said right to Mel's insane spin and then explained it quite
differently..more reasonably but still inaccurately.

OK, how do _you_ misrepresent it, Jeff?

I wanna know how OBL has been helped by the lifting of the flash
surpressor,
bayonet lug, and pistol grip on semiautomatic rifle manufacturing ban.
Kerry seems to think that terrorists shop for weapons here, instead of
buying actual machine guns in their home countries. Is he lying, or
just
_that_ ignorant? I can't tell. Any ideas? How about you guys, Jeff
and
Nate? Which is he, ignorant or stupid?

Again you misrepresent. Kerry talked about police chiefs being opposed
to
lifting the ban on assault weapons because it means criminals will find
it
easier to be better armed.

Actually, the example was that he was talking to a Sheriff about an
incident last
year (during the ban, by the way) during which the criminal had "An
AK-47".
Now, I'm guessing you don't know a lot about this issue specifically.
That's why
you're ideal for Kerry to lie to, because you just take it at face value.
Let's
look at the problems with his example.

1. This was _during_ the "assault weapons ban" (actually a
"flash-surpressor,
bayonet lug, and pistol grip on semi-auto rifles that look like machine
guns"
manufacturing stop order). If it shows anything, it shows that the "ban"
was ineffective. If the ban worked, you see, then said criminal would
have
obeyed the law. Maybe _you_ are in favor of ineffective laws that
inconvenience
only the honest, but I am not.

i also thought it pretty odd that an example of the law not working was an
argument for the law being continued.

2. If it was an "AK-47" (Kerry's words, not mine), then it was by
definition
full-automatic, _not_ an "assault weapon" as defined by the ban, and not
just
illegal, but _very_ illegal. As in, "send the criminal to federal
pound-me-
in-the-ass-prison" illegal.

3. If, as logic would indicate, this was an AK-47 _looking_ semi-automatic
rifle,
then (A) He's lying when he said it was an AK-47, (B) He's lying when he
implied
that a machine-gun has _anything_ to do with the bayonet lug etc. "ban",
and
(C) once again, he's not being straight with anyone. All it means is that
this Democratic nominee was able to find a Sheriff somewhere in the
country to
tell him a story.

I think as an aside he mentioned the report that possible terrorists have
crossed the border into the U.S. from Mexico recently and if so will be
purchasing weapons here. The ban on assault weapons made it more
difficult
for them to find the kind of artillery they would like.

No, it didn't. The "ban on assault weapons" banned strictly superficial,
cosmetic features on guns that look like their military counterparts.
Nothing
more. Bayonet lugs and so on do not make a gun any more attractive to a
terrorist than that same gun without a bayonet lug. This is the
fundamental
lie that Kerry is exploiting to make his point. This is central to his
lie.
The rifles that the "ban" involved are functionally identical to hunting
rifles made for
the last century or so, they just "look scary" and public confusion vs.
machine guns is easier when they look like what you see on the evening
news.

I think you know this, you just have no integrity..no respect for truth
and
reason..and are prepared to mislead and deceive when you perceive it as
helping your candidate.

Tell me specifically (there I go again, trying to pin down Jeff...) what
detail, nuance, or fact in what I have stated in this message is
inaccurate.
You can't, because it's not.

Go ahead Jeff, tell me where I am stating something not true.
Dave Hinz