PDA

View Full Version : In all honesty, is there any grounds to this?


oni.dori
04-12-2011, 3:01 AM
So I was thinking, after reading some Pro-Gun factuals that were generously shared with us in another thread and reading some of the absolutely inane things said by antis the likes of Dianne Fienstein, in her March 2001 Senate testimony, saying that .50 caliber rifles can penetrate light armor from 4 miles away. ANYONE with even the TINIEST understanding of firearms and basic ballistics knows that is not in any way possible, even every ounce of physics refutes it. However, our dear friends like Feinstein tout it as ABSOLUTE truth; and it's bad enough to say in general, but in a SENATE HEARING, no less.
Now this brings me to my point, we time and time again complain getting these wenches and tools out of office, yet lament that there is no way to get rid of them, short of voting them out (and we all know THAT will never happen). Well, with them spouting off such absolute and ludicrous falsities as 100% fact, in an OFFICIAL deposition, then couldn't we bring them up on charges? I mean, in reality, didn't she commit perjury? Same with all those that tout absolute lies and falsities as fact in their reasonings (and wordings) in their rediculous laws. Isn't that legal grounds to file charges against them for things such as purjury, falsifying information, lying under oath, and the like just as anyone else could (and would) be? That would be the ultimate, most effective, and most permanent way to be gone with them. In addition to that, it would make a VERY strong and clear statement to the rest. We are watching, ALWAYS. As it was said before, the best chance we have is to fight them in the courts.

Mr. Wannabe High Profile Banger
04-12-2011, 4:35 AM
If she believes it to be true, can she be held accountabe for a lie?

Kid Stanislaus
04-12-2011, 6:13 AM
Keep on dream'n.

lgm118icbm
04-12-2011, 7:40 AM
"You can't fix stupid..."

-Ron White

Barabas
04-12-2011, 7:58 AM
It's called hyperbole. It's an important part of our history, our country likely wouldn't exist if it weren't for its ability to spur men to action. Useful tools can be used by useless tools.

dantodd
04-12-2011, 9:15 AM
If she believes it to be true, can she be held accountabe for a lie?

Ask Barry bonds. Also, ask any police officer if believing something to be legal means you can't be held accountable if it turns out to be a violation of the law.

NightOwl
04-12-2011, 9:17 AM
"You can't fix stupid..."

-Ron White

In most cases (not all), stupid will fix itself.

killmime1234
04-12-2011, 9:47 AM
I know one guy who could do it. :gura:

wash
04-12-2011, 9:49 AM
A perjury trial might be fun to make her admit she was wrong, but to make the charge stick, I think you need to prove that she knew better.

I haven't seen her get anything right so it's going to be hard to get a conviction.

bjl333
04-12-2011, 9:52 AM
But it will penetrate armor @ 4 miles!!! She just didn't say how think the light armor actually is ... or what the armor is made of!! I can get my alumium foil and make an armor right now ... :p

jonyg
04-12-2011, 9:54 AM
In most cases (not all), stupid will fix itself.

How many more terms before stupid fixes itself? :mad:
How anyone can get away with flat out false information at a senate hearing is beyond me. They're not just screwing with the heads of people they talk to, but the lives of the entire nation...

Patrick-2
04-12-2011, 10:07 AM
No. Won't happen. First, she is a legislator and not a sworn witness. The purpose of hearings is to discern information. She can state all the beliefs she wants, none of it matters.

Think of most hearings as 'working sessions'. Not all of it is going to be factually correct, though at times that is the goal. Such times result in sworn testimony, with witnesses under oath.

The best example I can think of is the Tobacco Executives who each - under oath - testified that they did not believe smoking could cause cancer or other ill health effects. The key word there is "believe". You cannot disprove what is in someone's head unless they share it in the open. There was a push for a while to try to subpoena tobacco documents to 'prove' these guys did not believe what they said. It never happened.

Bad anti-gun facts are as prevalent as bad pro-gun facts.

For instance: more guns means less crime.

Not proven. Statistics only say that during a period of time in which gun ownership increased, crime also decreased. But that crime decreased everywhere, including anti-gun jurisdictions like DC, Baltimore and Chicago. Guns likely had little to do with a drop in crime in those municipalities, yet everyone claims the positive national trend is caused by guns. Correlation is not causation. Crime is complex, though our side tends to oversimplify some of its causes and solutions.

I'm not trying to thread-jack, but just pointing out that hyperbole is not limited to one side. Each side has "common sense" idioms they believe. Some are more far-fetched than others, but in the end it is a matter of communicating with others our beliefs - buttressed by whatever facts we can muster.

Some stuff is flat-out wrong (Feinstein's comment). The only way to effectively counter it is with the correct information. Trying to squelch the voice won't work, and can actually backfire. See: Streisand Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)

Dreaded Claymore
04-12-2011, 10:24 AM
It's called hyperbole. It's an important part of our history, our country likely wouldn't exist if it weren't for its ability to spur men to action. Useful tools can be used by useless tools.

Yeah. I don't really like to admit it, but the Revolution was based largely on hyperbole. For instance, the Boston Massacre wasn't anywhere near as bad as it was made out to be. (But I do think that the Revolution was a just cause, the same as (for instance) India's, even though we had it way better than they did.)

CHS
04-12-2011, 10:27 AM
I've said it before and it bears repeating.

It's not illegal to lie.

This is what the anti's do often. They make up facts, they lie, they rename things to make them sound scary. It's what they do. We're fighting an emotional argument, not a logical one.

SJgunguy24
04-12-2011, 10:31 AM
Don't forget that she is "Senator Diane Feinstein" and she knows what's good for us better then us rubes do. Who cares if she has no effing clue what she's talking about. I mean really when she was stealing our rights (guns) she had a CCW. Even though she could afford a nice security detail and have those boys carry the guns, she still had her's.

SJgunguy24
04-12-2011, 10:33 AM
I've said it before and it bears repeating.

It's not illegal to lie.

This is what the anti's do often. They make up facts, they lie, they rename things to make them sound scary. It's what they do. We're fighting an emotional argument, not a logical one.
If that isn't the gods honest truth I don't know what is.

Nevermore
04-12-2011, 10:49 AM
Don't forget that the US Constitution protects legislators from arrest for any work they do as a legislator, save for treason, felonies, or breach of peace. Nothing they say in a speech or a debate can be used as the basis of prosecution:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

US Constitution: Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Sect ion_6:_Compensation.2C_privileges.2C_and_restricti ons_on_holding_civil_office) notes:
"One may not sue a Senator or Representative for slander occurring during Congressional debate, nor may speech by a member of Congress during a Congressional session be the basis for criminal prosecution. The latter was affirmed when Mike Gravel published over 4,000 pages of the Pentagon Papers in the Congressional Record, which might have otherwise been a criminal offense."

So, no, there is no judicial way to oust Feinstein unless she decides to start shooting up the Capitol. Gun owners will have to continue the long, hard slog of educating the public, using the media how it can, fighting in the court system against asinine laws, and using elections as opportunities to change minds.

cvc04
04-12-2011, 11:51 AM
"Senator Dianne Feinstupid"

bandook
04-12-2011, 1:00 PM
So I was thinking, after reading some Pro-Gun factuals that were generously shared with us in another thread and reading some of the absolutely inane things said by antis the likes of Dianne Fienstein, in her March 2001 Senate testimony, saying that .50 caliber rifles can penetrate light armor from 4 miles away. ANYONE with even the TINIEST understanding of firearms and basic ballistics knows that is not in any way possible, even every ounce of physics refutes it. However, our dear friends like Feinstein tout it as ABSOLUTE truth; and it's bad enough to say in general, but in a SENATE HEARING, no less.


The Barrett 82A1 lists the max range at a shade over 4.2 miles. But you'll probably have to use it like a howitzer to get that range.

650+ grains of metal will probably still do some damage at 4 miles. (i.e. I would not want to be at the receiving end of said projectile at 4 miles - light armor or not).

Now if your point was whether someone could aim and shoot someone 4 miles away, then yes, you are right. Unless one is in an elevated position, the curvature of the earth itself will hide a 6 foot person at 4 miles.

Not supporting Feinstein, just the that 4 miles is within the range of the .50 BMG.

Wernher von Browning
04-12-2011, 2:37 PM
Now if your point was whether someone could aim and shoot someone 4 miles away, then yes, you are right. Unless one is in an elevated position, the curvature of the earth itself will hide a 6 foot person at 4 miles.

Not supporting Feinstein, just the that 4 miles is within the range of the .50 BMG.

Not to divert this from the topic, but there's a really interesting chapter in "Hatcher's Notebook" by Gen. Julian Hatcher, Chapter 22, "How far will my gun shoot?"

One can read the first five pages of this chapter (including Table 3 with range of various bullets, .50 cal. M2 included) by going to Amazon.com, "look inside," and enter "how far will my gun shoot" as search term. Begins p. 541.

http://www.amazon.com/Hatchers-Notebook-Revised-Classic-Books/dp/0811703509/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302643946&sr=8-1#reader_0811703509

CHS
04-12-2011, 3:16 PM
Not supporting Feinstein, just the that 4 miles is within the range of the .50 BMG.

The problem is that there's a huge disconnect between the range of the actual projectile, and the range at which a human being can actually target that projectile.

No one is dropping a .50bmg projectile onto a small target at 4 miles except due to blind luck, magic, or the hand of god intervening.

bussda
04-12-2011, 7:46 PM
...

Bad anti-gun facts are as prevalent as bad pro-gun facts.

For instance: more guns means less crime.

Not proven. Statistics only say that during a period of time in which gun ownership increased, crime also decreased. But that crime decreased everywhere, including anti-gun jurisdictions like DC, Baltimore and Chicago. Guns likely had little to do with a drop in crime in those municipalities, yet everyone claims the positive national trend is caused by guns. Correlation is not causation. Crime is complex, though our side tends to oversimplify some of its causes and solutions.

...



I do not mean to continue the thread jack, but I must respectfully disagree. The meme "more guns, less crime" counteracts the meme "more guns, more crime". The primary point is that where the gun ownership rates are higher, overall crime rates are lower. Start with the Lott Mustard CCW study and Kleck's "Point Blank". Higher crime rates are strongly pushed by drugs, population density, intermingled culturally diverse populations and poor economic conditions. Thus "more guns, less crime" is more accurate then "more guns, more crime".

But, returning to the reason of this thread, politicians attack using simple targets. The truth is not important. To be seen attacking the problem is more important. Image over substance. And the only way to attack that is with education, without propaganda. What are the facts?