More on Machine Gun Sammy
Now that I think about it, this release represents more lies from the Bradies:
How could it have gone in any other direction, from a White House that just gave blanket immunity to the gun industry, which refuses to bar terrorists from buying guns, that broke a campaign promise and put Uzis and AK-47s back on America’s city streets, and insisted that records of gun purchases be destroyed before the sun sets on them twice?
It had to be a Supreme Court pick that favors legal machine guns.
In 1996, Judge Samuel Alito was the sole judge who dissented from his Third Circuit Court of Appeals colleagues when they upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns.
Well, AK-47s and Uzis are machine guns. So, Jimmay, which misrepresentation are you trying to perpetuate:
That the assault weapons ban affects machine guns?
That machine guns are assault weapons?
Both? And I mean machine guns in the legal sense and assault weapons in the until-very-recently legal sense. And the last sentence:
“If Judge Alito had his way, the federal machine gun ban would have been struck down as unconstitutional, and the private possession of these weapons would have become legal.”
I thought you guys just said that AK-47s and Uzis (which are machine guns) are legal?
November 1st, 2005 at 10:10 am
Looks like just one more reason to support the guy
November 1st, 2005 at 10:19 am
The lies finally caught up with CBS, they are closing in on the brady bunch.
November 1st, 2005 at 1:33 pm
With enemies like this, who needs friends?
November 1st, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Actually, there is no general federal prohibition on possession of machineguns. Only a prohibition on possessing unregistered machineguns, or machineguns made after 1986. IIRC, the case they’re referencing concerned a machinegun (I think actually another home-built, just like in Stewart) made after 1986.
Once again, the Bradys are either ignorant of the law, or deliberately lying and distorting for to scare the sheeple as much as possible.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Oh, and while, according to the law, the AK-47 and the Uzi are legally machineguns, they do not meet the technical definition of such.
The AK-47 is an assault rifle. The Uzi is a submachinegun.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:43 pm
I love how Alito did not merely dissent in that case, he was the sole judge who dissented. As if there were some way two or more judges could have dissented on a three-judge panel.
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:42 pm
[…] Via Uncle, the Brady Campaign to Prevent [Lawful] Gun Violence [in Self-Defense] rails against Samuel “Ilito” for “favor[ing] legal machine guns.” They also quote, without noting the irony, “Jim Brady, chair of the Brady Campaign,” while declining to offer any dissenting views from Xrlq, chair of the Xrlq Campaign, or anyone else pretentious enough to name a campaign after himself. Regarding Alito’s dissent in U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996) they also offer this gem: In 1996, Judge Samuel Alito was the sole judge who dissented from his Third Circuit Court of Appeals colleagues when they upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns. […]