Bil Browning

The Worst Thing You'll Read Today

Filed By Bil Browning | January 12, 2011 6:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Living, Politics
Tags: assault weapons, Joe Miller, Palmetto State Armory, South Carolina

What violence in our political rhetoric? Just because a South Carolina ar15a__b.jpggun manufacturer is releasing an AR-15 assault rifle with Congressman Joe Miller's "You lie!" quote engraved on the firearm, doesn't mean they expect anyone to use it on a lying liberal like Obama, right?

Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-S.C.) health care-era "you lie" interruption of President Obama is now reportedly being commemorated with a place on a new, limited edition line of assault rifle components.
...
"Palmetto State Armory would like to honor our esteemed congressman Joe Wilson with the release of our new 'You Lie' AR-15 lower receiver," the weapon manufacturer's site writes in the product description. "Only 999 of these will be produced, get yours before they are gone!"

*sighs*


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Technical point of order: that's not an assault rifle. An assault rifle is by definition a select-fire weapon which is capable of both semiautomatic and fully automatic fire; civilian AR-15 rifles like that one are based on the military M-16 assault rifle, but are semiautomatic only and hence not actual assault rifles. Referring to them as actual assault rifles is scaremongering.

Or it could be that the original reporting calls it an assault rifle, and the manufacturer's promotional material calls it an assault rifle.

It's a common media error to refer to any rifle which looks "military-ish" as an assault rifle, yes, just as it's common to refer to any armoured vehicle as a tank. The ubiquity of the error does not make it not an error.

Note that I never accused you of dishonesty; I merely corrected the factual error.

Rick Sutton | January 13, 2011 9:00 AM

Uh, Desiree, my dear...have you wandered onto the wrong blog?

I'm assuming the weapon pictured was an editorial decision made by Bil, who, as far as I know, never fired a weapon in his near-eastside Indianapolis home. Although a few of his neighbors did/do (sigh, Bil...in some ways, it's gotten better, in others, just...sigh)

So, riddle me this, Desiree: if the weapon pictured is not EXACTLY the one mentioned in the article: will both mentioned weapons kill? Quickly? Multiple times? Does it really matter? And should we routinely consult the latest edition of the Denner Weapons Catalogue before making assumptions about dangerous weapons that kill people in rapid order?

And, are you really freaking serious with the "scaremongering" thing? And, don't you feel just a little bit silly harping on this technicality given the serious national discussion regarding weapons, et al?

Geeeesh. Life begins when you get one.

I'm assuming the weapon pictured was an editorial decision made by Bil, who, as far as I know, never fired a weapon in his near-eastside Indianapolis home. Although a few of his neighbors did/do (sigh, Bil...in some ways, it's gotten better, in others, just...sigh)

I would imagine that Bil decided that the actual product in question -- which is just the lower middle piece of the gun without any barrel, stock, magazine, or scope attached to it, would confuse people because it's not visually recognizable as a firearm.

So, riddle me this, Desiree: if the weapon pictured is not EXACTLY the one mentioned in the article: will both mentioned weapons kill? Quickly? Multiple times? Does it really matter? And should we routinely consult the latest edition of the Denner Weapons Catalogue before making assumptions about dangerous weapons that kill people in rapid order?

The idea that the AR-15 is an exceptionally dangerous weapon that "kills people in rapid order" is an illusion generated by Hollywood movies, in which fully automatic assault rifles are lead-spraying death machines. The reality is that the AR-15 is a small calibre semiautomatic rifle which is far less powerful than a typical hunting rifle; in fact, many states prohibit hunting deer with one because it is too weak to guarantee a quick, clean kill.

And, don't you feel just a little bit silly harping on this technicality given the serious national discussion regarding weapons, et al?

I would say that it is a matter of journalistic integrity to provide readers with factually correct information rather than reinforce common myths and stereotypes. Regardless of the opinion one has on gun control, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle and referring to it as one is a red herring.

Wow. That's a really personal comment. Why is it that a post about guns makes someone who knows Bil point out where his home is?

It's okay. I got the point Rick was making and I don't think it was meant to point out my house. The east side of Indy is a pretty big place and I don't live there any more. :) The neighborhood is known for it's gun violence though - I had a pistol shoved in my face on my own front porch once from some punk running through the neighborhood.

Spotty, block-by-block, Bil, but the thugs are getting more bold. Your old 'hood is not as safe as it once was, sadly. My northside existence was altered when we moved to Irvington last fall--and my eyes were opened, too.

But Miss Desiree insists on your posts providing 100% correct weapon references. The gun to which she refers, and the one you pictured, are evidently not the same. Never mind each gun is capable of killing in quick order. Multiple times.

I know I look to blogs for all-things-weaponry.

Neither the gun mentioned in the article nor the gun pictured in the article are assault rifles, and neither one of them is actually capable of "killing in quick order, multiple times" as you claim.

It is also important to note that the entire article is a moot point, as the manufacturer cancelled the product in question without ever actually releasing it. At no point was the receiver in question for sale; it was merely announced and then quietly withdrawn.