Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Survivors of Jan. 8 aid gun controls [View all]beevul
(12,194 posts)""Glock handguns are "not suited for hunting or personal protection, said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign."
Yep thats what I said.
But I'll change it just for you (not that it changes helmkes level of dishonesty either way)
not suited for hunting or personal protection, said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign, referring to a 9mm glock handgun.
Do you suppose helmke thinks that 40 cal, or other non 9mm caliber glock handguns ARE suited for hunting and personal protection?
So what you point out, is a distinction without a difference, but I'll give you credit for taking the best you have, and running with it.
"Now, I'm sure they didn't teach you this at the NRA Center for Journalistic Integrity, but if you're going to insert your own words into an excerpt, you're supposed to use brackets, as in " Glock handguns are) "not suited for hunting or personal protection, said Paul Helmke..." But never mind that. The more important point is that if you are going to modify a quote from an article, you have to do it honestly, and not omit any key details."
Your punctuational lesson is noted. As I said, credit is given to you, for taking the best you got, and running with it. LOL.
"You know, details like the "30-bullet clip" (I know, magazine...). This was an article about Loughner, and one big controversy was the fact that we was able to kill so many people without reloading because he used a high capacity magazine."
Except helmke wasn't talking about a clip, in the quote in question, was he. Here, I'll use the excerpt you were so kind to provide (thanks btw) :
Loughners gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is not suited for hunting or personal protection, said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. What its good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.
You do see the subject of that paragraph is the GUN right, and not the clip? The only people who the magazine is controversial to, is people like you, who wish to use its presence as a hammer to try to restrict and or ban them. You'll turn a blind eye to the fact that cho used STANDARD capacity mags, and killed even more. In any case, the subject which helmke is referring to, is the gun. The thing he said isn't suitable for self defense, is the gun. There, you see? Reading comprension isn't so hard, with a little help, is it.
"Anyway, beyond the delicious irony that you had to fabricate a NYT quote in order to try and accuse Helmke of dishonesty, this and the other examples of "lies" aren't actually lies, they are just things you disagree with. Maybe you think that a 30-round magazine is essential for hunting and self-defense, but the fact that Helmke disagrees with you doesn't mean he's lying. Or, for another example, how can the fact that the Brady Campaign opposes concealed carry be a "lie"?"
WOW. Get some reading comprehension. Again, helmke was talking about the GUN, not the magazine, when he said "not suited for hunting or personal protection. That would be why so many law enforcement officers carry glocks, right, because they're not suitable for personal protection?
Here, lets apply more reading comprenehsion to what I wrote, don't worry, I'll help you through it:
"We're not a gun ban organization. We don't push for gun bans" - Helmke - 2008.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nra-gun-licensing-and-reg_b_110778.html
That is a factually incorrect statement.In other words, a LIE. The proof? The brady bunch submitted an amicus in favor of the DC handgun ban. If that isn't "pushing for a gun ban", what is?
More proof:
http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/MINORITY/630%20gun%20forum/Paul%20Helmke%20Testimony06302011_PH.pdf
Here is their lieing republican former leader stumping for a ban in front of a house committee roughly six months ago:
"Number Two We need to prohibit the sale of military-style semi-automatic assault
weapons and assault clips."
http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/MINORITY/630%20gun%20forum/Paul%20Helmke%20Testimony06302011_PH.pdf
Lieing and outright dishonesty: check.
Then I wrote:
This is a group that has deliberately included adults in thier "child statistics" to inflate them. No organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.
Including adults in "child statistics to inflate the numbers and make them look worse than they actually are: Dishonesty - check.
And I wrote:
"This is a group that claims to want to prevent gun violence, yet gives grades on a per state basis based on how much they restrict guns rather than how high or low the level of gun crime/gun violence is in that state. Again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing."
If you can't see the dishonesty inherent in this, I'm afraid I can't help you.
Then I wrote:
This is a group that opposes concealed carry, even though police as a group are convicted of a larger number of crimes than CCW holders.
Both facts. CCW holders generally aren't responsible for "gun violence" in any statistically meaningful way - and remember, statistics are IMPORTANT to the bradys, important enough to add adults into "child statistics - yet they're against CCW.
The only reasonable conclusion one can come to, is that they're against CCW for reasons having little to nothing to do with "gun violence", and that their "mission", is much broader than they state it is.
Dishonesty on their part: check.
"This is a group that claimed that "assault weapons" were the choice of criminals, in spite of the fact that ALL rifles - which 99 percent of so called "assault weapons" are - are used in less than 3 percent of all firearm homicides, and used that false rationale for stamping thier feet and screaming ban at the tops of thier lungs."
Yep, this claim was bullshit every time it was made, repeated, ad nauseum. In the era in which this was a popular meme, the most commonly used crime gun was a revolver, iirc. But that didn't stop them and their sycophants from chanting the not-reality-based meme, now did it. Maybe you weren't alive for it, or weren't politically active or paying attention during that era. Well, many of us were.
Dishonesty on their part: check.
And I wrote:
"This is a group that claimed that civilian owned 50 caliber rifles which are esentially never used in crime could shoot down aircraft, which is a huge lie, and used that false rationale for stamping thier feet and screaming ban at the tops of thier lungs."
Perhaps it was VPC that did this...And yet... The bradys DO want it banned, thats a fact. The rifle in question, is responsible for essentially NO gun violence in America.
Why then, do the bradys even touch on it?
Because they have a mission which far exceeds "preventing gun violence", thats why.
Dishonesty on their part:check.
Look, man, if you're going to attempt to defend the indefensable, you're going to have to try much harder than that. You'll at least need to accurately read and comprehend what they're saying. Besides, just about everyone here knows how dishonest the brady bunch is. Its been pointed out a hundred times or more. I'm basically preaching to the choir here, and only a very few hardcore truth denialist gun ban supporters would assert anything to the contrary about the brady bunch and their deciet, dishonesty, and outright lieing to the american people, or defend any of the above.
Ultimately, those people are free to self identify themselves as such, by doing so.