Dave Stancliff In my defense: take a moment and read this… blogarama.com

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

In my defense: take a moment and read this…

My column “Let’s face it, no one will take the high road to gun control” has caused controversy.

There’s some things I’d like to clear up. See below (submitted to the Times-Standard Forum this morning):

“It’s interesting to see the fear and hatred in this thread.
Some negative comments have been legitimate, and put forth in a civil way. Many others are just people with knee-jerk reactions to the word “gun control.”
Why am I under siege? Let’s look at the accusations.
People are calling me a liar because I said “I’ve seen no signs of new gun control legislation since Obama was elected.” Fact - no gun control laws have been enacted yet. Someone mentioned AB 962, which is lying on the floor in the California Senate. Take a moment and really look at the chances of that bill passing. The NRA is tapping it’s paid-for politicians to put pressure on it. Don’t hold your breath, if you think that’s going to pass. Would anyone else care to show me a gun control bill that stands a chance of passing anywhere? Now that would be interesting. We could see how the NRA stifles any dissent.
Speaking of the NRA. Most readers glossed over one of the main points in the column. The NRAs omnipotent power to control politicians on both sides of the aisle. Who wants to intelligently discuss that without getting so emotionally involved that you have to call me names?
The 2009 June GAO Report on Firearms Trafficking has been battered about. Let’s take a look at it; a common attack on this report has come from a right-wing blog called “NewsBusters.” They challenge the US Secretaries statements that 90 percent of the weapons come from Mexico. Fair enough. Some wanted to know if I read the 84 page report. I did, without bias eyes. A few people pointed out that the ICE and ATF reports said only 17 percent of weapons recovered from cartel-related crime scenes in Mexico actually originate in the U.S. They’re right. One section did mention this. Now think about this statement: weapons recovered in Mexico (not at the border or from the Mexican mafia and cartels)...just some figures put together by a corrupt Mexican government. The U.S. secretary challenged that assertion by saying there were sampling issues in the report. In other words, it’s what they (Mexican government) said, and what our U.S Secretary said. Who are you going to believe? I think there’s a problem there.
Perhaps my biggest crime was a semantical error. I said “machine gun” instead of “assault rifle.” That immediately made me a liar to those with an agenda. I wish I could take that wording back, but it was a mistake and I can live with that.
I know that I should have been more specific about laws constricting sales of “assault rifles.” By using M-16s, AK 47s, and Uzi’s, I opened the doors for someone looking to discredit this column. I should have been more careful in my wording. I do know about the laws people have been bringing up regarding automatic weapons/assault weapons. A simple change or wording would have eliminated that onrush of information. Was I wrong to be concerned over “assault” weapons? I don’t think so, but some people don’t even want to see that discussion come up. So be it.
Claiming that I’m using the race card when talking about the spike of guns sales and ammunition since Obama ran for office last years, is another agenda-driven opinion. Anyone that really cares about the facts can check FBI reports, secret service reports. There are other sources, but if I give them then I’ll be no better than my critics, because they are coming from an agenda-driven sources. I have never written about gun control. It’s not something I’ve crusaded for in the past. Claiming I’m a messenger on behalf of liberal nut cases, is ridiculous and I defy anyone to ever find an article where I addressed this before.
The biggest issue, from what I’ve read of the comments, is the following statement by me “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” I already addressed the 90 percent thing. The other part that has riled up some people is my assertion that “it’s easy to get automatic weapons.” I should have added,“If you really want them.”
I should have noted that there are plenty of laws in place restricting gun dealers from selling automatic weapons, but there are still loopholes in the system that allow criminals and others to get them. Otherwise, where are these clowns getting the weapons? To suggest it’s just a tiny population of bad boys who get these weapons is inaccurate. Plenty of “honest Americans” have them (some buying them before the 1986 ban). Where they end up is anyone’s guess.
What I didn’t see much discussion on were the main points of the article. The NRA owns all of our politicians. Gun sales are up for many reasons. I suggested that the gun and ammunition industry are thriving in this these hard times.
I hope this helps those who have open minds.

 I know it won’t make a difference to those who have set agendas, and who will continue to peck away in order to obscure the main messages of my column.
Thanks for reading this.

4 comments:

Damon said...

Your follow up is interesting in the fact that you are wrong on so many counts but you still won't admit it. Sure I could brow beat you on the terms you use. Or I could rant about the hateful over generalizations you are pushing. I don't understand how you can fear the lawful gun owners. After your demonetization it is clear that you do. I'm not a racist. I voted for the democratic presidential candidates in the last 6 elections. But you would lump people like me in with the fringe of the NRA. I would just like you to know that I don't believe in chipping away at any amendments of the constitution. I also don't believe it is right for one person or group to dictate to others what tools are at there disposal to defend themselves and their family's. I would like to suggest that you take your fear and direct it somewhere else.

Good day Sir.

Dave said...

Thanks for sharing your opinion Damon.
I certainly don't lump honest men like yourself in with the NRA fringe Please note that I said that in the column.
My beef is with the NRA's power over our politicians.

Not people like you who aren't racists. Not with people concerned over their Constitutional rights like you.
The fear comes from NRA minions who don't want to lose their stranglehold on the politicians.
Not from people like you.
Good day to you too, Sir.

Sailorcurt said...

You're vilification of the NRA ignores the fact that the NRA is nothing more than an organization of millions of registered, dependable voters. You know...the people to whom the politicians are held accountable.

Whether you realize it or not, today's backpedal does nothing but condemn you further.

You admit that you knew about the information giving lie to the claim that the majority of Mexican crime guns come from the US...yet you continue to use the blatantly false canard.

You admit that you knew that the inaptly named "assault weapons ban" had nothing to do with automatic weapons, yet you made this gross mischaracterization anyway...interestingly, this blatant lie is directly in keeping with the well known tactics of the anti-gun lobby of intentionally misleading the public:

"Assault weapons...menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988


I could go on but I won't bother.

By your own admission, you knew better, but you insisted on promulgating the inaccuracies anyway.

Tom Holloway said...

For a guy who isn't going to "brow beat" and "rant", Damon, you sure do brow beat and rant.
I do not understand why one person's source for information is so much more reliable than another's. Such name calling is both childish and unnecessary.
Not once has Stancliff called anyone a liar. He has acted with the respect one would expect when dealing with others, no matter the differences of opinions.