Quote of the day–Dave Stancliff

I do ask for laws that would restrict sales of M-16s, AK 47s, or Uzi’s. I don’t care what anyone says, hunting with machine guns makes no sense. The only use for them, the use for which they were intended, is to kill people. Lots of people, real fast.

It’s no secret that automatic weapons are so easy to buy that American gun dealers supply the Mexican cartels with 90 percent of the weapons they use to terrorize people on both sides of the border.

Dave Stancliff
September 13, 2009
Let’s face it, no one will take the high road to gun control
[Actually, I think it is a secret–since only the anti-gun people believe it. The pro-gun people know they have to spend 10s of thousands of dollars on an automatic weapons of any type if they can find one for sale.

He also implies hunting is the reason people want to own machine guns. None of people that I know who own machine guns claim that is the reason for ownership of them.

Also in the article is the suspicious claim that “About two billion bullets were made in America last year, bringing in about $7.5 billion”. This implies an average cost of about $3.25 per round. This is more than a little bit high.

This is all more evidence that the MSM (this guy is a “former newspaper editor and publisher”) does not care or is too lazy to know the facts.

Comments can be sent to richstan1@suddenlink.net or www.davesblogcentral.com–Joe.]

12 thoughts on “Quote of the day–Dave Stancliff

  1. I was doing some research on recent gun thefts and I was quite surprised to find out that some fully automatic guns have been stolen. (Most were HK-somethings, I’m sure you know what they are.)

    There aren’t a lot of these being reported stolen, but it’s like two here, one there, etc. Some of the weapons being stolen from police cars are full auto guns. Just from published reports, there have been maybe 10 to 20 stolen in the last month.

    Since we don’t hear much about these being used in crimes here, I’m wondering if they aren’t finding their way across the border? Don’t you think those Mexican drug lords would pay more for those weapons than people here would? Also, kinda OT, but have you seen photos of the gold guns confiscated in Mexico? Those are some sort of bling!!

  2. Hmm, the number I’d seen for rounds produced was around 10 billion, which still doesn’t match the $7.5 billion figure.

    But still, it’s interesting to consider: If the anti-gun people are right, bullets have only one purpose: to kill someone. If that’s true, then bullets have a 99.9997% failure rate, assuming the 10 billion figure and 30,000 gun deaths per year.

  3. Well, I was not initially planning on doing it, but I left this comment over at his weblog, preserved here in the case of “Reasoned Discourse”:

    Given that you have already devolved to the point of ridiculous name-calling in the space of two comments, Dave, you might want to be careful with your admonishments to maintain a “civil” attitude.

    Regardless of that point, however, you might want to check your facts… pretty much all of them, in reality.

    First, the BATFE itself has testified before Congress that only 8% of firearms recovered in Mexico came from American FFLs, and only 18% of firearms recovered in Mexico came from America in general. Needless to say, 18 is significantly less than 90, and when given the choice between a non-existent GAO report (your link is broken) and the folks who are actually responsible for looking up where those firearms came from, I am going to go with the latter, every time.

    Second, as has already been pointed out, and you already ignored, it is not “easy” to purchase fully-automatic firearms. One must first find one of the few civilian-available automatic weapons on the market, pass a background check, pay copious quantities of money, and get permission from federal and local law enforcement authorities. Furthermore, selling an automatic weapon to anyone who has not done all of those things (as you are alledging that individuals do) is already illegal, on multiple different levels… so how will making it more illegal matter?

    Third and finally, it is Obama himself who set the firearm-owners and rights-enjoyers of America on edge, with statements like this from his very own election platform:

    Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

    1. The Tiahrt Amendment already allows LEOs to do their jobs and track firearms used in crimes – it simply does not allow that information to be released to the public as a whole. Claiming otherwise is a lie. 2. There is no “gun show loophole”, any more than there is a “reality loophole”. Just last week I purchased a beautiful open-top revolver from a guy I found online, for cash, in a store’s parking lot. No background checks. No exhange of IDs. Nothing but two adult human beings engaged in a private (and 100% legal) business transaction. So how is that a “loophole” again? 3. There is no way to make firearms 100% child-proof and still have them useful in self-defense or home-defense situations. For example, of any of the many “childproofing” systems posited for firearms, why are police departments completely uninterested in them? 4. There is no evidence that the Assault Weapon Ban decreased crime, and in reality “assault weapons” are only used in 1% of crimes. Furthermore, banning firearms is a direct and obvoius assault on our Constitutionally-protected, natural rights as human beings.

    Sure, the NRA and other organizations spread the word, but Obama himself was the man who alienated so many Americans with his promises – yet unfulfilled promises, as you point out, but promises he made.

    So what is “the high road to gun control”, Dave? It would seem to me that protecting and preserving our Constitutionally-protected, natural rights to self-defense would be the “high road”, but you apparently have a different opinion. Apart from a redundant and largely superfluous additional restriction on automatic weapons, what are your other ideas? For such a long-winded article, there were a lot of words, but not a lot of concrete ideas.

    Given Dave’s previous comments, something tells me his reaction will be some more “stuffing his fingers in his ears” nonsense.

  4. ubu52, Just because they aren’t used in crimes doesn’t mean they don’t stay in the U.S. I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t end up in the safe of collector. Just like stolen art.

    Patrick, Yeah. I’ve been thinking of doing a post with the title “Numbers” or “Numbers don’t lie” and including that sort of stuff.

    Linoge, Good job.

  5. Joe,

    Collectors can buy those things legally. There is no reason for them to buy them off the street because, unlike stolen art, they aren’t one of a kind.

  6. ubu52, Not necessarily. If the gun was manufactured after May 1986 it is illegal for a private citizen to own it. Also black market machine guns are much, much cheaper than legal machine guns.

    Linoge, Wow! That is really something else. That’s going into my quote database too.

  7. About the theft of registered NFA machine guns… Given the admitted shoddy state of the ATF’s records division, I wonder if a guy who swiped a NFA gun wouldn’t have a fair-to-even shot at submitting the transfer paperwork and getting it registered to him?

    And furthermore, most NFA MG’s trade for about the same as a new luxury car and are stored more securely. Why in the hell would a drug gang bother with stealing one of those when they can pick up Soviet era ‘foreign aid’ AK’s in South and Central America for a couple hundred dollars all day long? The idea that Mexican drug gangs are arming themselves with American MG’s is obviously ludicrous to anybody who isn’t a total dolt.

  8. Stolen guns, or this or that gun being taken across this or that border, confusing semi-auto with full autos, crime, safety– these are all distractions. There is one reason and one reason only that the leftist/Fascist wing wants gun restrictions, and that’s political power. They can’t control our lives to the extent they would wish unless we hold still for the treatment, and that requires disarmament. The second amendment exists for that reason. Hunting and self defense against common criminals are secondary and tertiary benefits. Sport shooting is for practice, for reason numero uno.

    If you study the tactics of the leftist/communist/Fascist/Progressive revolutionary movement in their own words, you find that the deliberate use of misinformation, confusion, and even insanity is encouraged. Stancliff appears to be right on task in this regard.

    Fun as it may be to point out Stancliff’s towering ignorance (though it’s just as likely intentional on his part) getting bogged down arguing statistics, gun action type, the finer points of federal gun law, and all such rot is to miss the point.

  9. “…you find that the deliberate use of misinformation, confusion, and even insanity is encouraged.” Though today we just refer to it as “Journalism”. Courage.

  10. Lyle sums up why I don’t both engaging people like Stancliff. I support those who do.

    I confess to having read the post and comments, it looks like willful ignorance, no?

  11. “If you study the tactics of the leftist/communist/Fascist/Progressive revolutionary movement in their own words, you find that the deliberate use of misinformation, confusion, and even insanity is encouraged.”

    If you study liberal Progressives, you’ll find that there is a branch that doesn’t sound that much different from the extreme right. Some of them are liberal criminal defense attorneys who are strong pro-second amendment and they are also against the death penalty, the police, the government, etc. Perhaps some who think they are Libertarian are actually Liberal Progressives? That’s the danger of putting labels on people.

Comments are closed.