Cheney on Meet the Press.... uh-oh

RH

New member
If I mis-heard, someone correct me, because I flipped the channel on just as Russert asked this question this morning:

Q: You support outlawing cop-killer bullets and plastic weapons ?

A: Yes

____________________________________
Plastic weapons ....? jeez, what would half the police departments and federal LE agencies do with all those Glocks ... sell them for $50 to a buyback program, so they can be melted down ?
 
Yes, he did say that.

But he didn't say what that meant nor did he say why he voted against them before. He talked a lot about "procedural" votes regarding apartheid.

It could be that he considers the Glock to not be plastic gun...

Rick
 
What he said was that of course he was not in favor of"copkiller"bullets{whatever those are?}but he was not in favor of anything that infringed on the second amen.and the Constitution.Those votes that are being harped about had less too do with guns and bullets and more too do with politics of the day.
 
The Evil party is trying to make political hay from some of Cheney's earlier votes (like voting against the "plastic" gun ban). The biased media will not report any explanation Cheney offers for not voting against plastic guns, only that he is "for" them. Since there are no plastic guns, he can say he's against them, and undercut the leftists' attempts to paint him as an extremist. Don't take these things too literally; he's just trying to keep the media from misleading the public about his position.

TB., NC
 
I heard him too, and was disappointed with his answers.

He missed a golden opportunity to state that both were meaningless "feel good" laws and that the so-called "fringe" element (Russert's word) who voted against them were the ones not being stampeded by anti-gun hysterics.

His saying that he would vote for them today gives those two empty charges validity. The fence-sitters who heard him now think such guns exist.


[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited July 30, 2000).]
 
The term "Cop Killer Bullets" is meaningless. Any bullet that will kill a cop will also kill anyone else. Guess we should call swimming pools "Child Killers."

Isn't it strange that the military uses steel jackets bullets to kill people but the government wants civilians to use soft-points and hollow point bullets in self-defense. Yet we all know the soft-points hunting type bullets are the deadliest.

Just another load of lies. If I had my ways I'd permit any LEO who wanted to carry KTW type ammunition. What do you do when the bad guy is wearing a bulletproof vest?
 
Didn't you notice the smile on his face when he said it? Why get into a stupid debate with an idiot like Russert. We all know how this innane legislation just drips with emotion and is not worthy of serious consideration. Glocks were supposedly the "plastic guns" and Black Talons were the "cop-killer bullets" (at least in the media, they were).
 
have i told you that i love the internet lately?
;)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>MR. RUSSERT: Two votes that really did create a lot of interest, particularly amongst police
organizations, were your votes on gun control. The first was a ban on cop-killer bullets—the vote
was 400 yes, 21 no—and a vote on plastic guns that terrorists use to hijack planes to get them,
undetectable, through security, 413-to-4. Those aren’t Democrat-Republican numbers,
liberal-conservatives. That’s a fringe vote. You’re one of four. Today, would you vote to support
measures to ban cop-killer bullets and to ban plastic guns that cannot be detected by airport security?
MR. CHENEY: Well, obviously, I’d be happy to entertain that notion. I don’t want to say that
I’m absolutely for cop-killer bullets. I’m clearly not. But I think both of those cases, these measures
came up under suspension of the rules. They came up where amendments weren’t allowed, debate
was limited. We weren’t allowed to get into the substance of the measures. And I had very strong
feelings — and still do — for the Second Amendment. And I think it’s very clear, very important
provision in our Constitution, certainly in keeping with the wants and desires of my folks in
Wyoming, that you shall not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And so I would
start with a healthy skepticism and want to take a careful look at any proposal that I thought began to
cross over that line. But I think in these cases, part of the problem we had with it was that, it did, in
fact, involve suspension of the rules.
MR. RUSSERT: But if it was a clean vote, would you authorize money to ban cop-killer bullets
and ban plastic weapons?
MR. CHENEY: Yes.[/quote]
http://www.msnbc.com/news/439511.asp
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>MR. RUSSERT: But if it was a clean vote, would you authorize money to ban cop-killer bullets
and ban plastic weapons?
MR. CHENEY: Yes.[/quote]

A bullet that kills a cop is "illegal" right? Wouldnt that be what a "Cop-Killer Bullet" is??? There is no way to "prove" that a bullet might be thinking of killing a cop, impossible to prove intent.

Ban plastic weapson - Ban all plastic knifes, forks, spoons! (Yes even those cheap ones that MOST fastfood places use)

OK that is all I have to say.

------------------
-AoW[t]-Dead [Black Ops]
 
David Kopel, to the rescue:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>====================================
The Cheney Glock-n-Spiel
Bush's Veep-in-waiting proved he won't be seduced by mindless gun lobbying.


By Dave Kopel, of the Independence Institute


The gun control spin machine and its media assistants are in full blather over Dick Cheney's vote against banning so-called "plastic guns" which could slip through metal detectors. Unfortunately, the are no mental detectors which can alert television viewers when spinmeisters have not the slightest idea what they're talking about. In fact, Cheney's vote showed that he won't let himself be stampeded by lobbyists or expediency; the vote therefore underscores his moral fitness for high office.

Today, one of the most popular American pistols for police work, for target shooting, and for self-defense is the Glock, which is manufactured in Smyrna, Georgia. The Glock's virtues include being reliable and unlikely to jam, extremely durable even when not cleaned, and much more comfortable to carry than most other handguns. The reason for this last virtue is that the Glock's frame and grip are made from high-tech plastic polymers. The barrel and internal working components of the gun, however, are made from metal. (The Glock is the most used pistol in American Police Departments AND my wife loves her Glock 23, we can't ask for a better endorsement than that)

Glock pistols, in many different caliber's, are ubiquitous today, but in the mid-1980s, they were brand new. Then, the company had not opened its Georgia plant — only a few thousand Glocks had been imported from the company's base in Austria. The gun prohibition lobbies know that it's a lot easier to terrify the American people about something unfamiliar. So the lobbies — with the energetic assistance of the Washington Post and Jack Anderson — undertook a publicity campaign to panic everyone over the Glock. They started calling the Glocks "terrorist specials" and pretending that they were designed to sneak through metal detectors.

This was a patent lie. The purpose of the lightweight plastic frame is to make the gun more comfortable to carry for extended periods. That is why the Glock began to catch on for police use very rapidly in the late 1980s. Today it's one of the most popular police firearms.

As for being able to slip through metal detectors, experts testified to Congress that the Glock is readily detectable. They showed Congress photos of a Glock under a metal detector, with the Glock's profile very easily visible. Unfortunately, facts don't matter all that much on Capitol Hill. Having spread the lie about the undetectable plastic gun, the gun prohibition lobbies moved to stage two: the bait and switch. Senators Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) and Strom Thurmond (R-SC) introduced a bill that outlawed tens of thousands of all metal handguns — everything that had less than eight ounces of steel. For example, the thirteen ounce Raven pistol, which is made of alloys, and therefore has less than eight ounces of pure steel, would have been banned as a "plastic gun" — even though it doesn't have a molecule of plastic.

The Department of Justice under Attorney General Meese (who had fought the NRA for years over the bill that finally became the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986) was poised to endorse the "plastic" gun ban. Only the timely intervention of Vice President Bush stopped the DOJ. Still, the gun-prohibition lobbies spread enough disinformation — especially on security-conscious Capitol Hill — that many legislators felt a need to "do something." So, in perfect Capitol Hill fashion, they passed a bill which satisfied the bipartisan desire to "do something," and which did not offend anyone because it did not actually do anything.

"Compromise" plastic gun legislation was approved by the National Rifle Association and by the gun prohibition lobbies. The lobbies got to tell their members, correctly, that the lobbies had actually pushed a bill into law. The NRA got to tell its members that nothing had happened. Both groups were right.

The compromise bill banned the future production and sale of firearms with less than four ounces of metal. The bill had no effect on any existing gun, and as far as I can tell, no effect on any gun that anyone has ever wanted to build. The production of mostly-plastic guns continues full throttle. The Glock pistols were followed by the .22-caliber Syntech from Ramline, and now even Smith & Wesson is using plastics. For most in Congress, the plastic gun compromise was like getting an "A" without having to take the final exam. The major lobbies on both sides were happy; Congress looked like it was doing something; and nothing bothersome was done.

Four Representatives voted "no" against this sham legislation. One of them was Dick Cheney of Wyoming. The vote shows that Dick Cheney is a man who doesn't decide what to do simply by gauging how the lobbyists line up. He takes the care to learn the facts — even the facts that can't be found in the Washington Post. His garbage detector is very strong. Too bad all the media talking heads don't have their own garbage detectors, which might lead to some questioning of the plastic gun hoax.
=====================================[/quote]

Isn't it interesting how, when things don't 'make sense' you can safely assume the anti-self defense lobby and the mainstream media are lying, no?

Regards from AZ

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited July 30, 2000).]
 
Cheney was on all three "talking head" shows today. Since I can't abide Russert, I viewed him being interviewed by Tony Snow on Fox. He made a very good impression on me, and spoke directly to the Second. His choice as VP as made me feel much better about Bush's chances. When the Pataki name was floated a couple weeks ago as a potential VP, I swore then that I'd bolt to the LP if that came to pass.
 
Funny thing
since glocks are still legal to buy,
i guess the Senate did not pass that bill onward...

dZ
 
Excellent post, Jeff Thomas. Do you have any material about the so-called " cop killer bullets"? I've heard about the KTW bullets and know they were never meant to be sold as a bullet to anyone, not even police, they were designed as a research vehicle, I believe, then the Black Talons came out and the press referred to a "teflon" coating that would defeat body armour, thus "cop killer" bullets were born. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one.
 
Black talons were a different problem.
They were a jazzy hollowpoint that expanded into a supposed buzzsaw. Winchester pulled them because of the bad PR and claims that
the points would be dangerous to physicians.

There is no evidence that they were or are more effective than other good rounds.

Droolers buy them at gun shows for high prices because they are 'banned' - which they aren't anyway.

It is not hard to design a handgun round that can penetrate a standard LEO vest.

That is a different issue from banning most rifle rounds that now can penetrate a vest.

I wish people would be more precise and know stuff beyond cliches.

The issue would be:

1. Should the average citizen be able to purchase handgun rounds that could penetrate a standard vest?

2. If truly undetectable handguns were designed - should the average citizen be allowed to own them? Some ceramic knife companies actually add a detectable strip to
their knives that are sold to civilians.

In any case, no manufacturer who developed such a gun would want to sell it to civilians. Think of the liability.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnochGale:
1. Should the average citizen be able to purchase handgun rounds that could penetrate a standard vest?

2. If truly undetectable handguns were designed - should the average citizen be allowed to own them? Some ceramic knife companies actually add a detectable strip to
their knives that are sold to civilians.
[/B][/quote]

The answer to both questions is YES. Vests are very easy to come by, so as a potential home invasion victim I might face a BG wearing a vest and as such I want to be able to defeat that vest. I would not want it because I wanted to do other things.

I should have access to the best weapon available to protect myself. If I felt like paying out the nose for a fancy shmancy plastic gun then I have the right to do so.

Most importantly as Americans we should be allowed to do as we damn well please, so long as it does not interfere with someone else's rights. Just because we MIGHT do something wrong is not good enough.
 
You're all missing the point of the "armor-piercing" ammo laws.

They were the same as the "sporting purposes" import ban.

To give discretionary power over what's banned and what's not to some bureaucrats/ATF agents.

They defined armor-piercing as steel cored. The cheapest ammo was AK 7.62x39 steel core - it was not made steel core for armor piercing but for cheapness. Some fool chambers a pistol for this and instantly it's armorpiercing pistol ammo - import banned, importers who have the stuff out of pocket (as only grandfathered private possession is legal).


Rifles can go thru small armor. Armor-piercing is a system, not just a bullet.

It's gonna hurt with steel core banned when they get rid of lead for environmental reasons. Ammo's gonna be expensive when it's made of gold :)

Steel core ban just got some gun control out there that people who didn't know the facts could get behind emotionally.

"feel good"?

Battler.
 
Back
Top