Dividing the electorate in to the smart ones and the ones who vote for me
Posted by aogTuesday, 31 October 2006 at 21:38 TrackBack Ping URL

I got a campaign mailing from Naomi Jakobsson, who is my state representative. She normally comes off as a mild moonbat, which is expected because of the local population which consists to a large extent of academics and their economic dependents. However, this mailing was a bit out there even for her and so ripe for fisking that I couldn’t resist posting about it.

One side of the mailing consists of a big picture of an AK-47 with the following text —

Some things are just obvious, like the need for common sense gun laws.

[picture of AK-47, completely unidentified]

WARNING: This military assault weapon is capable of firing a rapid succession of ammunition at any target, moving or stationary and should be considered extremely dangerous. Use of this weapon may result in sudden loss of life to yourself or others. Although Republicans in Congress and President Bush disagree, this weapon is intended solely for military purposes and is not suitable for a civilian environment. All persons, regardless of age, sex, race, ethnicity, income, religion, party affiliation or political persuasion should avoid coming in contact with this weapon.

With a picture of a big gun like that, the urge for target practice overwhelms me. Let’s get shooting.

military assault weapon — why, yes it is. Apparently she has no idea which one it is, but gosh it sure is scary looking so how could it be anything else?

capable of firing a rapid succession of ammunition — Really? What a surprising design feature in a military assault weapon. I would never have suspected.

at any target, moving or stationary — It doesn’t turn off when I point it at a moving target? What kind of fancy technology will they think of next! Have you alerted our National Guard about this? Maybe they should get some.

extremely dangerous — “There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people”.

Use of this weapon may result in sudden loss of life — What barbaric times we live in, when even simple military assault weapons can kill people. How have we strayed so far from the wisdom of our predecessors?

to yourself — OK, I take it back, maybe the National Guard shouldn’t get any.

Although Republicans in Congress and President Bush disagree this weapon is intended solely for military purposes and is not suitable for a civilian environment — Ah, finally she gets to the outright lieing. I was wondering how long a member of the Democratic Party could go without doing that. An automatic weapon as described in the previous text is very illegal requires explicit permission from local law enforcement to possess, has been for a long time, and neither the GOP Congressional delegation nor President Bush has made any effort to change that.

All persons […] should avoid coming in contact with this weapon — Why yes, clearly something like this is far too dangerous even for our military personal to touch (sorry I even suggested that we endanger our National Guard by giving them such fast tickets to suicide). I definitely think Jakobsson should take this message over to the Middle East, maybe Iraq, and explain it to the people there. I sure a big impact would be made.

Of course, on the other side is some blather about the “assualt weapons ban” which had nothing whatsoever to do with anything on the first side. She wants to pass one statewide, to “get dangerous guns off our streets”. Obviously she’s been impressed by the incredible success of such bans in places like Washington D.C.

I mentioned this to SWIPIAW and she responded “the set of people who will vote for her and can identify that gun are disjoint”. Most likely correct and around here, the first set is much larger than the second.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
h-man Wednesday, 01 November 2006 at 14:21

Not to nitpick you but unfortunately every thing you said is accurate and correct except

“automatic weapon as described in the previous text is very illegal”

Fully automatic weapons can be owned by civilians, but only under specific legislation dating from the 1930’s National Firearms Act Basically you need aproval from your local law enforcement agency, and the paperwork must accompany the weapon at all times. The designated owner is not allowed to sell or loan the weapon to anyone without approval from local law enforcement agencies. Also the firearm can never be handled or transported by any other private individual unless the firearm’s registered owner is present. For instance when I am in need of repairing my UZI or M16, I have had to be present when the gunsmith was working on it.

I don’t know about any overiding of the Federal Law in Illinois, but in Arkansas the Federal law is what is applicable. (Hint) members of law enforcement SWAT teams sometimes are allowed to purchase fully automatic weapons and if they should want to make a profit they might facillitate the paperwork in reselling them to the public.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 01 November 2006 at 14:35

Yes, I shouldn’t have glossed over that.

As for federal law, that applies in Illinois. Jakobsson doesn’t want to override federal law, she wants to re-create the federal “assault weapons ban” in Illinois as Illinois law. The (quite reasonable) presumption is that if the ban was Constitutional as a federal law, it’s Constitutional as a state law.

cjm Wednesday, 01 November 2006 at 22:04

every hs principal should be issued an ak-47

Post a comment