Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Could the Tulsa shooters claim immunity under Oklahoma's Castle Law? [View all]Here's the transcript:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41157187/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/t/rachel-maddow-show-tuesday-january-th/
Here's an excerpt, in which Rachel employs almost every trick in the journalist's book to suggest that this unicorn of firearms is a clear and present danger.
We begin tonight with a question: what if you had a gun that was entirely made of plastic, where all the components of the gun were high strength enough so the gun would function as a gun, but none of it was metal, so it wouldnt be detected by metal detectors? That means that everyone that is protected by metal detectors from the Capitol building to an airport to an event to see the president, youd be able to get your gun in there, scot-free. You could walk right through a metal detector with your gun and nobody would know you had that gun.
Should it be legal to carry an all-plastic gun?
These things can be manufactured. Glock, the company that made the gun that was used in the Arizona shooting this weekend, Glock announced back in the 1980s that they had perfected manufacturing techniques that would allow them to do this.
Should an undetectable gun like that be legal to buy in the United States? No. That should not be legal. At least, that was the decision that our country made when the issue came up. Congress voted on whether plastic guns should be legal to sell in this country back in 1988. The measure passed the House by a vote of 413 to four. There were only four votes against it.
Should it be legal to carry an all-plastic gun?
These things can be manufactured. Glock, the company that made the gun that was used in the Arizona shooting this weekend, Glock announced back in the 1980s that they had perfected manufacturing techniques that would allow them to do this.
Should an undetectable gun like that be legal to buy in the United States? No. That should not be legal. At least, that was the decision that our country made when the issue came up. Congress voted on whether plastic guns should be legal to sell in this country back in 1988. The measure passed the House by a vote of 413 to four. There were only four votes against it.
Glock has claimed to have the the materials technology necessary to produce such a weapon. So far, no working model of such a gun has ever been presented. The US, this hotbed of rampant and unrestricted access to firearms, would appear to be the only nation in the world that currently bans a class of firearms that does not exist.
She goes on to use this law to castigate Dick Cheney as one of the four who voted against it. He's got plenty of bad karma hanging over him. Couldn't she find a better stick to beat him with? Apparently in the wake of the Loughner/Giffords shooting, she thought this one was appropriate.
It gets worse with Russert, who refers to "a vote on plastic guns that terrorists use to hijack planes to get them undetectable through security," as if these guns did exist and had been put to use. They don't, and needless to say, they haven't.
The whole thing is, as they used to say in journalism school, a load of crap.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
135 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
And the pro-gun crowd just smiles, knowing that one of their own will likely not be convicted.
Hoyt
Apr 2012
#67
This is nonsensical flamebait, and an obvious attempt to disrupt the Gun Control & RKBA Group...
petronius
Apr 2012
#7
But there are a number here that have embraced the term and admit to being anti-gun zealots
rl6214
Apr 2012
#34
So one of your sources is a pro-gun blogger with a clear NRA bias, we can toss him out.
DanTex
Apr 2012
#76
Well, at least you recognize that she didn't actually say anything that was incorrect.
DanTex
Apr 2012
#102
Spot-on. And why (in this instance) Rachel is even sleazier than a liar.
Simo 1939_1940
Apr 2012
#122
Iverglas wants to ban private ownership of handguns. That is not "gun-friendly". nt
hack89
Apr 2012
#133
Proud to be included in the group. Like others, I'm against public toting. I also would like
Hoyt
Apr 2012
#70
jpak, you have put a lot of energy into posting ridiculous crap in this forum
slackmaster
Apr 2012
#88
I suppose. They could also claim innocence under an insanity plea...
OneTenthofOnePercent
Apr 2012
#108