So your saying that republican money is not behind these ads?
SwiftVets Commercial
- Thread starter motorguy222
- Start date
- Status
There is far less republican money behind that ad than there is democrat money behind Michael Moore's latest piece.
So who would you expect to finance it, George Soros? The funding issue has very little bearing on whether it is true. After all the Democratic Party is funding Kerry's version.
Since Kerry himself brings up all the time how he is a war hero, I think people have a right to hear from those who were around John Kerry in Vietnam. And many people who were around him seem to have a negative opinion.
Regardless what happened in Vietnam, what happened afterwards when Kerry returned to the USA was worse. NOBODY can deny that he went before Congress and accused American soldiers of war crimes in Vietnam. The video exists and there are witnesses. NOBODY can deny that he wrote a book with four men on the cover of the book holding an upside down American flag. The book existed. I have seen two photographs of the book. The book was selling on ebay (hundreds of dollars for a paperback book). The image on the cover apparently was meant to mock the flag raising on Iwo Jima in World War II. Since Kerry did not serve in World War II I don't know what his problem may have been with what America did in that war.
Regardless what happened in Vietnam, what happened afterwards when Kerry returned to the USA was worse. NOBODY can deny that he went before Congress and accused American soldiers of war crimes in Vietnam. The video exists and there are witnesses. NOBODY can deny that he wrote a book with four men on the cover of the book holding an upside down American flag. The book existed. I have seen two photographs of the book. The book was selling on ebay (hundreds of dollars for a paperback book). The image on the cover apparently was meant to mock the flag raising on Iwo Jima in World War II. Since Kerry did not serve in World War II I don't know what his problem may have been with what America did in that war.
I'm no great fan of Kerry, but he has a right to say whatever he wants to about Vietnam. And American soldiers did commit atrocities there, just like soldiers do in any war. Pointing that out doesn't make someone treasonous, in fact, silence would be worse.
YOU are the one stating that the Swiftvets ad is a Republican ad.
*** Proof please ***
From what I have read, there is primarily one wealthy guy in Texas that is backing the ads. That guy is apparently a Bush supporter (surprise!). If that makes the Swiftvets a republican ad, then everything funded by George Soros is a democrat ad, including the MoveOn video comparing Bush to Hitler. Fair enough?
I am not going to jump to the conclusion that the Swiftvets are liars because they don't agree with JFKerry. Still waiting for Dan Rather to demand an investigation of these serious allegations.
Keith.
rgl said "2 of your own cites talk about ASSAULT RIFLES. That is not the same as ASSAULT WEAPONS. A full auto MP5 is not an ASSAULT RIFLE. It is a submachinegun, or machine carbine. ASSAULT RIFLES are NOT rifles which fire pistol cartridges.However, the GUN BANNERS have "made" it an ASSAULT WEAPON with distortions such as you keep repeating. Even the M14 and G3 could be said to not be true assault rifles as originally the term described a reduced power cartridge such as the M43 7.62x39 cartridge of the AK 47and AKM rifles."
An 'assault rifle', is obviously a type of 'assault weapon'. The Sturmgewehr 44 is acknowledged to be the first assault rifle. The Marines referred to their M4s as assault rifles. Gun Digest is published by Krause Publications, see http://www.milarm.com/prices/krausepublications.html for part of their extensive list of publications on firearms, loading, etc. Based on your previous comments it seems that you should recommend that all Krause publications be placed on the NRA list of ostracized gun grabber products, and that anyone who reads such trash should also be ostracized by right (wing) thinking gun owners.
rgl said "Your point about who is trained with what type of firing mode is worthless."
It is probably THE point that both sides don't understand or want to acknowledge. Even when full auto rifles were issued the Marines trained their troops to use aimed, semi-auto fire. Full auto was 'so effective' that the Marines, who were largley responsible for the modifications that led to the M16A2, changed the full auto capability to a 3 round burst mode. The SAW is now used for the squad automatic weapon. Accuracy with a decent sustained rate of fire, magazine capacity, sights and relatively low recoil are the primary attributes of an effective military weapon. 9mm for short range use in the case of the MP5, say out to 200 yds max, the 5.56 out to 600 yards in the case of the M16A2, and the 7.62 out to 1000 yds in the case of the sniper rifles and the M14. Any semi-auto SKS, AK variant, Ruger Mini-14, etc., will be just as effective out to moderate ranges, but you don't see them on the high-power range as they typically don't have the accuracy out to the 600yd line.
As long as some gun owners do stupid things, whether it's selling or shooting, new gun laws will end up
An 'assault rifle', is obviously a type of 'assault weapon'. The Sturmgewehr 44 is acknowledged to be the first assault rifle. The Marines referred to their M4s as assault rifles. Gun Digest is published by Krause Publications, see http://www.milarm.com/prices/krausepublications.html for part of their extensive list of publications on firearms, loading, etc. Based on your previous comments it seems that you should recommend that all Krause publications be placed on the NRA list of ostracized gun grabber products, and that anyone who reads such trash should also be ostracized by right (wing) thinking gun owners.
rgl said "Your point about who is trained with what type of firing mode is worthless."
It is probably THE point that both sides don't understand or want to acknowledge. Even when full auto rifles were issued the Marines trained their troops to use aimed, semi-auto fire. Full auto was 'so effective' that the Marines, who were largley responsible for the modifications that led to the M16A2, changed the full auto capability to a 3 round burst mode. The SAW is now used for the squad automatic weapon. Accuracy with a decent sustained rate of fire, magazine capacity, sights and relatively low recoil are the primary attributes of an effective military weapon. 9mm for short range use in the case of the MP5, say out to 200 yds max, the 5.56 out to 600 yards in the case of the M16A2, and the 7.62 out to 1000 yds in the case of the sniper rifles and the M14. Any semi-auto SKS, AK variant, Ruger Mini-14, etc., will be just as effective out to moderate ranges, but you don't see them on the high-power range as they typically don't have the accuracy out to the 600yd line.
As long as some gun owners do stupid things, whether it's selling or shooting, new gun laws will end up
To who? To you? Because you say so? There was no category called "assault weapon" before the antis came up with the name. Just because some in the gun community use it now does not make it any more valid than "gun control" is a valid term for gun bans. The use of "assault weapon" in the magazine you cite is nothing more than a RESPONSE to the AWB furor. I can say knives are obviously "assault weapons" if I want and you would not be able to say otherwise without referring to the assault weapons law. It's a bogus definition created for political purposes. The guns are "assault weapons" because the AWB says they are "assault weapons." It is circular reasoning.
You haven't been listening to a thing I said, right? ASSAULT RIFLE does not equal nor is it a subpart of ASSAULT WEAPON. Go talk to any armorer in the service and refer to an AKM as an ASSAULT WEAPON and tell me what they say.
We have discussed this previously. A 3 round burst is still a machinegun under the NFA and WILL NOT be allowed even if the AWB is not renewed. The 1934 NFA would have to be repealed. Civilians cannot (since 1986) have a 3 round burst OR full auto, but the military does. So civilians already ARE prevented from having the capabilities the military weapons have, regardless of the AWB.
When McCain comments that Bush and his people did the samething to him in 2000 and that it is dishonorable and Bush should condemn the ad, but Bush hasn't. As an independent located in a swing state, I can tell you this type of mudd slinging pushes me toward a Kerry vote. Not a smart move on the Republicans part. Plus there are several months left before the November elections. By the time the DNC gets done with the guys that are part of this ad, they better be real clean. I bet we start seeing pictures of some of these guys with small children and farm animals before this is done. If they were going to pull this they should of waited until 3-4 weeks before the election, where there would be little time to check them and their stories out. Big screw-up!!!
So if this ad is being backed by a republican...it is a republican ad. So I was correct. If I had said it was backed by the Bush campaign, then I would be mistaken.
I guess we can rule out J.F. Kerry as the man behind this ad, huh?
Any ad funded by someone that once voted republican does not a republican ad make, in my opinion. I doubt that was what you intended in the original post, but since you opened the door...
Your definition could be good. Now we have democrat ads comparing Bush to Hitler to discuss! That is a lot meatier than an ad by some veterans that served with JFKerry and disagree with his version of what happened.
What do you think of these democrat ads then?
The Democrat Bush-Hitler ads
Keith.
We have discussed this previously. A 3 round burst is still a machinegun under the NFA and WILL NOT be allowed even if the AWB is not renewed. The 1934 NFA would have to be repealed. Civilians cannot (since 1986) have a 3 round burst OR full auto, but the military does. So civilians already ARE prevented from having the capabilities the military weapons have, regardless of the AWB.
RGL,
Maybe I am reading your context wrong.
Civilians can and do own full automatics, and sub machine guns.
It is called a Class III weapons permit. This way you can legally own an M60, or H&K MP5 or a Thompson and so on.
I have shot these weapons legally through class III licensee nationwide so i know.
If you ever bring up the weapons ban, always note the Class III licensure. It proves that those responsible can still own these awesome firearms.
RGL,
Maybe I am reading your context wrong.
Civilians can and do own full automatics, and sub machine guns.
It is called a Class III weapons permit. This way you can legally own an M60, or H&K MP5 or a Thompson and so on.
I have shot these weapons legally through class III licensee nationwide so i know.
If you ever bring up the weapons ban, always note the Class III licensure. It proves that those responsible can still own these awesome firearms.
This is about the most ridiculous post on this topic I have read. Gun Digest is basically a mass media bare-minimum information magazine. If they decide to call a bunch of weapons "assault weapons" to sell their paperback idiot guide, that's their prerogative. Please let me know if you find any reference to "assault weapon" in any USGI manual. The term "assault weapon" was invented by GUN BANNERS to capture a wide variety of weapons that are not ASSAULT RIFLES (a recognized term). You will not find the term ASSAULT WEAPON in any 1970s articles. ASSAULT WEAPONS is MEANINGLESS unless you are trying to figure out statutory construction in that abortion of a gun ban.
2 of your own cites talk about ASSAULT RIFLES. That is not the same as ASSAULT WEAPONS. A full auto MP5 is not an ASSAULT RIFLE. It is a submachinegun, or machine carbine. ASSAULT RIFLES are NOT rifles which fire pistol cartridges.However, the GUN BANNERS have "made" it an ASSAULT WEAPON with distortions such as you keep repeating. Even the M14 and G3 could be said to not be true assault rifles as originally the term described a reduced power cartridge such as the M43 7.62x39 cartridge of the AK 47and AKM rifles.
Your point about who is trained with what type of firing mode is worthless. THE GUN BANNERS HAVE USED THIS LIE TO GET THE WEAPONS BANNED. The TV news keep showing FULL AUTO AK rifles firing as though that is what is being banned. LIES!
The fact is that NO MARINE or US Army personnel are issued with AR-15s. (Yeah, maybe there's 2 in the gun room in Quantico or whatever for familiarization) IT IS NOT AN ISSUE WEAPON. If you want to shoot single shot or 3 round burst with an M16A2 that is a CHOICE. You do NOT have that choice with an AR15. If the 3 round is of no value WHY DOES THE MILITARY NOT BUY AR15s???? There are NO real assault rifles that are NOT capable of at least multiple shots per pull of the trigger. It is true that some auto rifles are blocked or configured from firing such as the M14 and the L1A1 in British service (BTW they just call it "self loading rifle") These blocks can be removed, unlike the permanent blocks built into the civilian clones. If you are caught with an unblocked receiver here in the US you are going away for a while. The bottom line is an ASSAULT WEAPON is anything gun banners don't like. So who's spreading lies now?
Yes, my bad on that, I should have put "new manufacture" in there. I was discounting "grandfathered" weapons since the AWB has left semis "grandfathered" as well. I should have clarified. I don't even think there was a 3 rd burst in production before 86. I forget.
Guys a Class III license is beyond most people ... even most avid collectors and shooters.
And yes, the term "Assault Weapon" has been misused by anti-gunners to try and tar all 'scary-looking' firearms with black plastic stocks/grips. Few know it truly means a selective-fire, medium-sized weapon, firing a medium-sized cartridge.
About the Swiftboats ad, Keith is essentially correct. If the mainstream media did their job, this group would not have had to raise money and run a private commercial calling Kerry's (highly questionable) record into question.
This is NOT a Republican ad, it's an ad being produced and run by a mixture of conservatives, Republicans (acting on their own) and veterans angry at Kerry's betrayal of all servicemen serving in southeast during that era.
The GOP/Bush-Cheney '04 has officially come out and said they don't like this ad and won't have anything to do with it.
Personally, I love it.
Ever notice that a vet (with something to gain if Kerry is elected) has loads of credibility but dozens more vets come out and say what a liar and an opportunist Kerry is (which we all know is true) and their motives are scrutinized until they are discounted?
Media Bias?
Naaaaaaahhh!
--- Bror Jace
And yes, the term "Assault Weapon" has been misused by anti-gunners to try and tar all 'scary-looking' firearms with black plastic stocks/grips. Few know it truly means a selective-fire, medium-sized weapon, firing a medium-sized cartridge.
About the Swiftboats ad, Keith is essentially correct. If the mainstream media did their job, this group would not have had to raise money and run a private commercial calling Kerry's (highly questionable) record into question.
This is NOT a Republican ad, it's an ad being produced and run by a mixture of conservatives, Republicans (acting on their own) and veterans angry at Kerry's betrayal of all servicemen serving in southeast during that era.
The GOP/Bush-Cheney '04 has officially come out and said they don't like this ad and won't have anything to do with it.
Personally, I love it.
Ever notice that a vet (with something to gain if Kerry is elected) has loads of credibility but dozens more vets come out and say what a liar and an opportunist Kerry is (which we all know is true) and their motives are scrutinized until they are discounted?
Media Bias?
Naaaaaaahhh!
--- Bror Jace
It looks like one of the guys in the ad is already backing down.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry?mode=PF
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry?mode=PF
Might want to check out the 7th post on this thread (by ALS) about the credibility of this writer...
Old news.
I suppose this is old news too?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...te_on_kerry_globe_stands_by_its_story?mode=PF
In 1996, when Kerry was running for Senate reelection and faced questions about the circumstances in which he shot the Viet Cong fighter, Elliott came to Boston and defended Kerry, saying he deserved the Silver Star.
In yesterday's new affidavit, Elliott said, "had I known the facts I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star simply for pursuing and dispatching a single wounded Viet Cong." He added, "I do not claim to have any personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong."
At the same time, Drudge also erroneously reported that Kranish, a 20-year Globe veteran, had written the introduction to a Kerry-authorized campaign book, "Our Plan for America: Stronger at Home, Respected in the World."
In fact, Baron said, Kranish had no connection to the Kerry campaign book and did not write its introduction.
Baron noted that earlier this summer Kranish worked with PublicAffairs -- the publisher of the Boston Globe biography of Kerry, "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best" -- to write a short introduction to a second project: an independent, unauthorized review of publicly available documents dealing with the platform and policy statements of Kerry and Edwards. That project was in no way connected with the Kerry-Edwards campaign, Baron said.
"When PublicAffairs subsequently struck an agreement with the Kerry campaign to do an official campaign book, Kranish's relationship with the project immediately ended," Baron said.
Feel free to read the rest of the article.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...te_on_kerry_globe_stands_by_its_story?mode=PF
In 1996, when Kerry was running for Senate reelection and faced questions about the circumstances in which he shot the Viet Cong fighter, Elliott came to Boston and defended Kerry, saying he deserved the Silver Star.
In yesterday's new affidavit, Elliott said, "had I known the facts I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star simply for pursuing and dispatching a single wounded Viet Cong." He added, "I do not claim to have any personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong."
At the same time, Drudge also erroneously reported that Kranish, a 20-year Globe veteran, had written the introduction to a Kerry-authorized campaign book, "Our Plan for America: Stronger at Home, Respected in the World."
In fact, Baron said, Kranish had no connection to the Kerry campaign book and did not write its introduction.
Baron noted that earlier this summer Kranish worked with PublicAffairs -- the publisher of the Boston Globe biography of Kerry, "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best" -- to write a short introduction to a second project: an independent, unauthorized review of publicly available documents dealing with the platform and policy statements of Kerry and Edwards. That project was in no way connected with the Kerry-Edwards campaign, Baron said.
"When PublicAffairs subsequently struck an agreement with the Kerry campaign to do an official campaign book, Kranish's relationship with the project immediately ended," Baron said.
Feel free to read the rest of the article.
rgl said "There was no category called "assault weapon" before the antis came up with the name. Just because some in the gun community use it now does not make it any more valid than "gun control" is a valid term for gun bans. "
The 1st edition of 'The Gun Digest Book of Assualt Weapons' was issued in 1986, almost a decade before the 1994 assault weapons law. They published it because there was a large and growing market for such weapons, many of them having been advertised in the likes of the NRA's own 'American Rifleman' for over a decade. 'Assualt' stuff was popular, not unlike 'tactical' stuff was during the 1990's. Duncan Long, one of the more prolific writers of books on assault weapons, acknowledged that the gun industry was responsible for the loose use of 'assualt' due to their marketing. It was the gun industry that developed the phrase and used and abused it, and when people started using more and more of the weapons in crimes it was a simple matter for people identify the weapons in ads and books as 'assault weapons'. It's such a popular phrase that one can even find many hits for 'assualt knives', as shown below. So put the blame where it belongs, which is on the gun industry and buyers.
http://www.greendevils.pl/technika_wojskowa/technika/ks62/ks62.html
KS-62 Assault Knife
http://knifeoutlet.com/shop/catalog/4896.htm
Ranger Assault Knife
http://www.mdenterprise.com/atak.htm
Advanced Tactical Assault Knife
rgl said "A 3 round burst is still a machinegun under the NFA and WILL NOT be allowed even if the AWB is not renewed. The 1934 NFA would have to be repealed. Civilians cannot (since 1986) have a 3 round burst OR full auto, but the military does. So civilians already ARE prevented from having the capabilities the military weapons have, regardless of the AWB. "
No, no, no. They're often expensive but one can get Class III weapons with the proper permits. Again, the point is that regardless of the laws or terminology or capability for full auto or burst fire, aimed semi-auto fire is what works, and that's why the Marines teach their people to use it. It doesn't matter how many rounds you put down range, hitting the target is what matters. In that respect civilians have as much capability as the military does, but they don't have the rest of the weapons that a military unit does.
The 1st edition of 'The Gun Digest Book of Assualt Weapons' was issued in 1986, almost a decade before the 1994 assault weapons law. They published it because there was a large and growing market for such weapons, many of them having been advertised in the likes of the NRA's own 'American Rifleman' for over a decade. 'Assualt' stuff was popular, not unlike 'tactical' stuff was during the 1990's. Duncan Long, one of the more prolific writers of books on assault weapons, acknowledged that the gun industry was responsible for the loose use of 'assualt' due to their marketing. It was the gun industry that developed the phrase and used and abused it, and when people started using more and more of the weapons in crimes it was a simple matter for people identify the weapons in ads and books as 'assault weapons'. It's such a popular phrase that one can even find many hits for 'assualt knives', as shown below. So put the blame where it belongs, which is on the gun industry and buyers.
http://www.greendevils.pl/technika_wojskowa/technika/ks62/ks62.html
KS-62 Assault Knife
http://knifeoutlet.com/shop/catalog/4896.htm
Ranger Assault Knife
http://www.mdenterprise.com/atak.htm
Advanced Tactical Assault Knife
rgl said "A 3 round burst is still a machinegun under the NFA and WILL NOT be allowed even if the AWB is not renewed. The 1934 NFA would have to be repealed. Civilians cannot (since 1986) have a 3 round burst OR full auto, but the military does. So civilians already ARE prevented from having the capabilities the military weapons have, regardless of the AWB. "
No, no, no. They're often expensive but one can get Class III weapons with the proper permits. Again, the point is that regardless of the laws or terminology or capability for full auto or burst fire, aimed semi-auto fire is what works, and that's why the Marines teach their people to use it. It doesn't matter how many rounds you put down range, hitting the target is what matters. In that respect civilians have as much capability as the military does, but they don't have the rest of the weapons that a military unit does.
- Status
