Thursday, December 10, 2015

Public Forum Announced on Emeryville Police Department's Use of AR-15 Assault Rifles

A local arm of a national police watch organization known as the Anti Police-Terror Project is hosting a public forum Sunday on the Emeryville Police Department and their use of AR-15 assault rifles in the wake of the shooting of Yuvette Henderson earlier in the year by Emeryville officers.  The forum, to be held at NUHW Hall, 5801 Christie Avenue #525 is titled Emeryville Police With AR-15s: Are We Safer?

According to the Facebook site dedicated to the event, in addition to EPD, the forum will include talks on the increasing militarization of police departments nation wide with detail on the Bay Area, specifically the Oakland Police Department.  Public policy analysts and activists will examine the impact of coordination between police departments and US Immigration Enforcement on latino communities.  The day will also feature spoken word and music performances.
The organizers to the event say the forum is intended to serve as the launch of a broader campaign to end the militarization of the Emeryville Police Department.

The Tattler weighed in on police use of these AR-15 assault weapons HERE and HERE.

All are invited to the forum and organizers would appreciate for interested parties to sign in at the Facebook site. The event starts at 2:30 and is expected to last until 5:00 PM Sunday December 13th.

39 comments:

  1. The AR15 is not an assault rifle. The AR15 is semi-automatic, and it does not have selective fire. To be classified as an assault rifle, a weapon needs to be fully automatic and provide selective fire. The AR15 meets neither of these criteria.

    The AR15 is also not used by the military. It is a precision rifle which is not suitable for combat. It is the most popular civilian rifle in the US. Over 2 million have been sold to civilians in the past 10 years.

    The AR15 is generally referred to as a 'patrol rifle' and is frequently used in situations involving an armed suspect because of its higher accuracy at a distance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct that the NRA and other pro-gun groups says the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. They have a fiduciary and ideological interest in pushing that. The United States government however, says the AR-15 is an assault rifle.
      The Tattler is not here to do the bidding of the gun lobby. The United States government is good enough for us. Assault rifle it is.

      Delete
  2. Who cares what you call the gun? The argument of whether or not it's defined as an "assault rifle" is insignificant. It's a semiautomatic rifle that is tactical in nature. Many manufacturers make semiautomatic rifles in various calibers and configurations. The question should be whether or not the Police should have rifles, and if so, what type? If we think they should, then a tactical AR platform in .223 is a good choice for an urban environment. I happen to believe they should be allowed to carry rifles. It's another tool at their disposal to protect the public. I'm not going to get into whether or not the fatal shooting of Miss Henderson was justified or not, that is a different argument. What I do know is that a rifle is a better choice for longer shots than a pistol if the use of deadly force is required. It also has the ability to penetrate body armor. In today's world, some of the bad guys are carrying illegal weapons that are fully Automatic with large clips and are wearing body armor(San Bernadino). Why shouldn't the Police have access to weapons that can deal with that kind of threat? It's a new world out there with the threat of Terrorism!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a small world you live in...small and very scary. I feel badly for you dude. Living in so much fear, it must be bad for your constitution.

      "Who cares what you call the gun"? Well, the NRA cares. They're paid to care. The gun manufacturing industry doesn't want the public calling these guns assault rifles...because they're scared the public might rise up and demand they be made illegal. But we don't care what a gun industry lobbying group cares about. We DO care what the people care about. So what do the people care about? They care that these weapons are referred to as assault rifles. Of the two proxy powers represented here, the corporate lobbyists vs the people, we'll go with the people. We're not going to carry water for the NRA or their paymasters in the gun manufacturing industry. The people as represented by the United States congress want us to call these guns assault weapons and that's what it's going to be here at the Tattler. There's plenty of other places you can go online where all you get is information in the gun industry's interest. Those places will do the bidding of the gun industry. That's where you should go.

      Delete
  3. No Brian you are wrong! The US Government does NOT consider the AR-15 an assault rifle. If it did it would be banned. DUH!
    Semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally different from the full automatic M16, although nearly identical in external appearance. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable, but the full automatic M16 bolt carrier is now the most popular type, and approved by ATF. This was done to satisfy United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requirements that civilian weapons may not be easily convertible to full-automatic.
    As the United States Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”[21] In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.
    Weapons capable of fully automatic fire, including assault rifles, have been regulated heavily in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Taking possession of such weapons requires paying a $200 federal transfer tax and submitting to an FBI background check, including ten-print fingerprints.
    If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an "assault weapon," he or she either supports banning these firearms or does not understand their function and sporting use, or both. Please correct them. "Assault weapon" is a political term created by California anti-gun legislators to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980s.
    I believe in sensible firearm laws and I also support the EPD using the AR15. It is NOT a military rifle nor does it call to the militarization of the Department. Fact is they shoot accurate. If the police are forced into a shooting situation I would hope they are carrying the most accurate weapons out there. It will save more lives than take.
    By the Way-I'm as liberal as they come and I HATE the NRA!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for offering us your opinions, Henry family.

      I'm sorry but I'm not going to "correct" those that call AR-15's assault rifles, instead, I'm going to correct you. The United States military may be of the opinion that AR-15's are not assault rifles but guess what? The United States does not have a military government (luckily). We have a civilian government. The military is subordinate to the congress; congress controls the military. That's the way the framers of the US constitution crafted our government.

      So what does the United States congress call AR-15's? They call them assault rifles. In fact AR-15's are specifically called out as assault rifles in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. You can see the law for yourself here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

      You are certainly entitled to your opinions that Emeryville police should carry these assault rifles. You may wish to attend the forum to express that view. But we're going to call these weapons what they are, we're not going to forward a pro-gun meme and incorrectly label these guns obscuring a vital truth about them. That would be forwarding propaganda and that's not our job. People should make up their own minds about this without subterfuge from interested parties.

      Delete
    2. Oh, and you might wish to take back that "DUH" charge leveled against me. The entire Federal Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to sunset by the Republican majority controlled congress in 2004. All the assault weapons specified by the 1994 law are now no longer banned (but they're still assault weapons).

      Delete
    3. The "DUH" charge stands.

      You state that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 calls out the AR-15 as an "assault rifle". That would be impossible because the phrase "assault rifle" does not appear once in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.

      And if you go to the Wikipedia article you linked as evidence of your position, here's what it says (which agrees precisely with what Henry Family told you):

      "The similar but technical term assault rifle refers to military rifles capable of selective fire - automatic (full-auto), semi-automatic, and burst fire. Automatic firearms (like machine guns) and assault rifles in automatic mode, shoot multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. Such firearms are Title II weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Neither the ban or its expiration changed the legal status of automatic firearms."

      This would be the point where you admit you're wrong, apologize for the error, and correct your the text of your blog entry.

      Or alternatively, you call me a right wing kook employed by the NRA and contracted by the California Restaurant Association with ties to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

      The latter keeps your world view intact so I'd suggest going with that.

      Delete
    4. Ahh, more from the right wing 'alternative set of facts'. Keep bringing those here...we love it.

      But first, your challenge: I should admit I'm wrong and apologize except for the following inconvenient text pulled from the law (Section 921 (a) (30), Title 18 U.S.C.). Banned weapons include:

      Any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as;
      Norinco, Mitchell, Poly Technologies, Avtomat Kalashinikovs.
      Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI, Galil.
      Beretta Ar70 (SC-70).
      Colt AR-15
      Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, FNC.
      SWD M-10, M-11, M-11-9, M-12.
      Steyr AUG.
      Intratec TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22.
      Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

      Note line four of the text above. Notice anything relevant to your charge?

      The right wing 'set of alternative facts' is used in their war on science. What's great about the 'set of alternative facts' is that it's so entertaining. It's fun (but also quite condemnatory of our screwed up country) to watch the 'facts' pulled out when they fight climate change especially. We get to watch the right wing in America service their paymasters in the fossil fuel industry by funny contortions, conflating weather with climate as in, "It snowed last week in Atlanta...very unusual...there goes global warming!" The 'set of facts' includes a provision that when backed into a corner, right wingers can just make shit up.

      So Mr Anonymous, go ahead and tell me there never was an assault weapons ban (because at the moment, it doesn't fit your argument)...it's all a libtard conspiracy to deprive us of our right to bear arms. Later on, if you're arguing that the Democrats are idiots because they instituted an assault weapons ban when they were in power (for instance), you can seamlessly reverse yourself. The 'alternative set of facts' are quite elastic. Not like those stubborn 'real facts' liberals use.

      Delete
    5. You keep using the phrases "Assault Weapon" and "Assault Rifle" like they are the same thing. They aren't. An "Assault Rifle" is one thing. An "Assault Weapon" is another.

      A "dog" is one thing. A "cat" is another. If I show a list of cats that includes a Pekinese, that does not make a Pekinese a dog.

      If I show a list of "assault weapons" that includes the AR-15, that does not make the AR-15 an "assault rifle".

      You are conflating "assault weapon" with "assault rifle" just as you suggest others are conflating "weather" with "climate".

      The phrase "assault weapon" was used to market a weapons ban that covered a wide range of guns, none of which were "assault rifles". "Assault rifles" were already banned.

      By using an invented phrase that sounds like "assault rifle", you cause people who aren't paying close attention to think they're the same thing.

      You've been confused by a marketing gimmick. And, that was precisely the point.

      Delete
    6. For the point of the story and political reality in Emeryville vis a vis the police carrying AR-15's, this point you're trying to make amounts to nothing. This has no bearing on the topic at hand. You want us to know there's some distinction between something and something else and you're extremely passionate about it. Thanks for sharing with us.

      Delete
    7. Don't expect concession from Mr. Donahue. Once he takes a position he goes whole hog and will make stuff up to fit his bias, I've caught him doing it before.
      I wonder, if the AR-15 is a banned assault rifle, banned in '94, why my father was able to buy a brand new one in 2003, and two friends of mine each bought a new one 2 years ago?

      I'm guessing you don't fully understand the ban, or the differences in the weapons.

      Delete
    8. No, not making stuff up: read again what I'm saying. You are trying to get me to concede some arcane point that isn't germane to the story. I don't care about what you're saying in that regard. The point is the word 'assault' is very important for the Chief of Police in Emeryville. The point is it must not be applied to AR-15's she says because she doesn't want the public to ban the EPD from carrying them. She thinks the word sounds scary. Who disagrees with her that the word 'assault' should not be applied to AR-15's? The Congress and the State of California. They say the word assault does apply to AR-15's, even if you disagree. So that's whom the Chief of Police (a government employee) should defer to, not a gun manufacturers lobbying group. It's called public policy because it's supposed to be in the interests of the public remember.

      Delete
  4. Brian- I can almost feel the veins in your forehead pulsating! Seems like the only person pushing propaganda here is you with your insistence on calling the AR-15's that the Police carry "assault weapons". They are not, but Obama and Hillary would like you to think so! Have fun at the meeting. I think I'll stay home and watch the "Duck Commander" on the boob tube.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You are aware that "Assault Weapons" are a made up political term fabricated by Anti-gun Democrats to scare the public into believing that the general public was buying and using Military weapons? Right, you knew this didn't you Brian? The term was manufactured and used to outlaw a class of weapons that dishonest anti-gun Democrats used to con an entire Nation. Please tell me you know this!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not interested in "knowing" your gun kook right wing propaganda...I'll let you stew in those juices. Please write next time your head breaks the surface.

      Delete
  6. My head just surfaced to take a quick breath. Whew! Thank you for the advice! I stand by my last statement. Research the terms "Assault weapon" or "assault Rifle" and let me know what you find out. My statements are not "Gun kook right wing propaganda". They are facts that you should research before you prattle on about a subject you know little about and enter into literary attack mode! I'll be surprised if you post this and even more surprised if you research the term and admit that it was made up by Democrats to mislead low information voters. Don't stroke out when you discover I am right. I would hate to lose this blog as a source of amusement!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we've been talking past each other. Here's what we have so far:
      -The Chief of Police wants everyone to know the word "assault" doesn't apply to AR-15's
      -She (presumably) bolsters her argument with sources subordinate to the US Congress
      -The Congress banned AR-15's as part of the Assault Weapons Ban
      -The word "assault" is therefore proper to apply to AR-15's

      Now to this you seem to be countering:
      -The AR-15 is a rifle
      -The Assault Weapons Ban didn't include the word "rifle" properly
      -Therefore the US Congress never made the finding that the word "assault" applies to the AR-15 even though it's in the Assault Weapons Ban

      Is this how your brain is working?

      Delete
    2. Brian - Can you tell us how you would like the police to respond in the event of a San Bernardino type attack in emeryville? 9mm pistols against body armor and assault rifles? Stun guns? Words?

      Delete
    3. It doesn't matter what I think about any of that. It's not germane to the discussion. I could tell you what I think about how daisies rate in the great daisy/gladiola debate but that too isn't germane.

      Delete
    4. So, to sum things up, legitimate uses for these weapons are not germane to the discussion of whether or not using these types of guns is legitimate?

      Delete
    5. Sigh....I'm getting bored. Please be a little more clever in your responses.

      Delete
  7. I don't think we are talking past each other. I'm simply trying to make the point that the term "assault rifle" is a made up term intended to scare the general population into agreeing with the Anti-gun Democratic party that these weapons should be banned. The AR-15 is an excellent tactical rifle platform and is not military in nature unless it is fully automatic or selective fire. Why would the AR-15 be a bad choice for the Emeryville Police Department? Are you trying to say they are militarized because they use these rifles? What if they used a semi-automaric Browning Bar Mark 2 rifle instead? Not practical for urban use unless you want to take down some angry street smart Elk but the rifle is still semi- Automatic. My point is that the term "Assault" should have no bearing on the decision of whether the rifle is appropriate for the Police since it's simply a made up political term used to frighten and manipulate. Thanks for listening!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok. You think the fact that AR-15's are assault weapons should have no bearing on the appropriateness of the Emeryville police carrying them. Thanks for your opinion. Now please stop trying to stop other people deciding about this for themselves. Just because you don't think the word assault is informative to the debate, don't stop others from drawing that same conclusion for themselves. You (or the Tattler) don't need to be big brother. Alternatively, some might draw a different conclusion and think that is IS informative to the debate. What we're not going to do is subvert the democratization of the debate. We're not going to go in and remove the word assault because you or anybody else doesn't like it.

      Delete
    2. I think you're starting to get it finally. The problem is not the word "assault". The problem is the phrase "assault rifle" which you consistently use incorrectly. Leave "assault" in and say "assault weapon". It's misleading but at least consistent with common usage.

      The AR-15 IS NOT an "assault rifle".
      The AR-15 WAS an "assault weapon" under the expired 94 Assault Weapons Ban.
      The AR-15 IS NO LONGER classified as an "assault weapon"
      The phrase "assault weapon" is the catch-all phrase used for all weapons that were previously banned in 94 and does not imply anything about the power or military nature of the weapon.

      Delete
    3. As I said the other guy above (you actually?), this point of yours has no bearing on the topic at hand. You seem to be having trouble catching the whole point.
      Again, here's what we have so far:
      -The Chief of Police wants everyone to know the word "assault" doesn't apply to AR-15's
      -She (presumably) bolsters her argument with sources subordinate to the US Congress
      -The Congress banned AR-15's as part of the Assault Weapons Ban
      -The word "assault" is therefore proper to apply to AR-15's

      Now to this you seem to be countering:
      -The AR-15 is a rifle
      -The Assault Weapons Ban didn't include the word "rifle" properly
      -Therefore the US Congress never made the finding that the word "assault" applies to the AR-15 even though it's in the Assault Weapons Ban

      You seem to be very angry at something and unable to make yourself clear.

      Delete
  8. Three different people and Wikipedia have tried to help you understand the concept without success. I think the issue is on your end.

    Here's what we have so far:
    - The Chief of Police said that the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. She is correct.
    - You said that the AR-15 is an assault rifle. This is incorrect.
    - You claimed that by appearing in the assault weapons ban, the AR-15 is therefore an assault rifle. This is also incorrect.
    - Multiple people have correctly pointed out the history of the phrase "assault weapon" as a political term intended to be confused with "assault rifles"
    - This distinction is important because without it, people who are not familiar with the terminology make the erroneous assumption that an "assault weapon" is a military weapon or somehow a more dangerous class of weapons than a 'regular' gun.

    To say a weapon is particularly dangerous or a military weapon because it was listed in the 94 Assault Weapons Ban demonstrates that you don't understand the history of that ban.

    Ultimately, the point is that the AR-15 isn't a military weapon, it is completely unlike a military assault rifle, and millions of civilians have the exact same rifle because it's the most popular civilian rifle in the country.

    If you don't want the Emeryville police to have the AR-15, then what rifle (if any) would you recommend to replace it and why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your contributing your opinion. You revealed your program with this comment and that's appreciated. You are concerned with a tautology you see in some semantics wrapped around a political idea that I read differently....in fact I read it as it's polar opposite.

      But your comment is valuable as I see it because you introduce the same idea as I do. And that is: people in power, the elite, are using euphemisms to try to obscure what they see as problematic language in their agenda... they're using lying language to hide what they see as the bad and unpopular parts of their agenda. They're afraid if people knew the truth, they wouldn't support it so they sugarcoat it. You see Democrats in Congress doing it, I see Emeryville's Chief of Police doing it. You're certainly entitled to your opinion that seems to be Democrats and liberals are lying assholes on this. But what you're not seeing is how your correct premise about the Power Elite working to purposely obscure the truth is actually being employed in Emeryville by the Chief of Police.

      The Chief is faced with a choice: should she use the definition of assault weapons/rifles as promulgated by the NRA, Republicans, and the US military? Or should she use the definition as used by Democrats and the US Congress? As a government employee, she knows the correct answer to that question: she needs to use the definition from the US Congress. The Congress are lawmakers and as such they are the relevant decision makers for the underling Emeryville Chief of Police. She pays deference to them because the lawmakers in Sacramento do and the lawmakers in Emeryville do. You can second guess Congress' motives with right wing legerdemain all you want here but that's not material. The Chief of Police made a political decision when she went with the NRA's definition of assault weapons/rifles. She's not free to do that and the Tattler is going to call her out on that political move.

      The Chief of Police wants the rank and file Emeryville officers to carry AR-15's. That's fine and she should use her powers of persuasion to convince us of the importance of that. But she should not engage in subterfuge to persuade us. She needs to brook in the truth. Watch for the Tattler editorial on this.

      Delete
    2. Brian, once again you have proven yourself to be a literary giant that enjoys battling with words and forcing the opposition to retreat to the world of Merriam-Webster for clarification. Tautology and Legerdemain? Wow! It seems however that you've beaten yourself with this last remark. You admit that the term "Assault Weapon" is a euphemism created by the power elite to manipulate and push their agenda. If this is the case, then the term is a fabrication and isn't germain (Hah!) to the argument, therefore it doesn't matter what title is applied to weapon in question. Let's just say the Police Chief is correct in simply calling the AR-15 a rifle and not an "Assault weapon" or Assault rifle" since you've admitted those terms are made up and don't exist. Thanks for listening!

      Delete
    3. Sorry if you don't know the meaning of those words. I could dumb down the Tattler and write for 10 year olds but I don't want to. The best way to convey meaning to complex issues is by using words with nuanced complexity, that's why a language with more words is quantifiably better than one with fewer words. You're going to have to accept how the Tattler is here...you can continue using your dictionary if you like or stop reading the Tattler.

      Again, if you read my comment above, I'm not saying the term "Assault Weapon" is a euphemism created by the power elite to manipulate and push their agenda. I'm saying the opposite: the term "NOT Assault Weapon" is a euphemism created by the power elite to manipulate and push their agenda.

      If you check your dictionary you'll see the word NOT means doesn't apply or something to that effect. So when someone says NO they don't mean YES. Understand?

      Delete
    4. It's a good thing that I practice "catch and release". Otherwise you would be dangling from my stringer! Thanks for playing along. It's been fun. You still never answered a question that was asked 3 different times. What rifle do think is appropriate for the Police to carry(if any?)

      Delete
    5. The trouble, other than that you're intentionally trying to obfuscate a very simple point to avoid admitting you didn't understand the topic at hand, is that the US Congress DOES NOT have a definition of Assault Weapon. The one that existed was political and, as a result, was allowed to expire.

      The Chief of Police has no more obligation to implement it, abide by it, or give homage to it than she does the 18th Amendment of the US Constitution. I find this fortunate because after trying ever so hard to break through your impenetrable Great Wall of Ignorance, I need a drink.

      I did get a chuckle out of the pretense that the Tattler has anything to do with "nuanced complexity". You refuse to understand even simple nuance. You consistently attack and condemn nuance in favor of ideological group-think. That's why you are so quick to retreat to calling differing opinions "right wing". It is your weapon of choice against academic discourse and thoughtful consideration of complex issues.

      The entirety of this thread is a valiant effort to make you acknowledge the nuance and history of two commonly understood phrases that you consistently misuse.

      It would have been easy enough to take your medicine, do a little research, and correct your usage. Instead, you spend days demonstrating that you don't understand the topic at hand and worse still, refuse to learn anything.

      A command of the language is not the poor application of uncommon words. It is the uncommon application of common ones.

      Delete
    6. I noticed you never answered my question about the great daisy/gladiola debate. Which side do you take (and why?).

      Delete
    7. I'm bored.
      I think your recalcitrance at weighing in on the Daisy/Gladiola debate reveals your nefarious intentions. The lengths you've gone to pay homage to the victors in the Peony Incursion of 1992 and the succor given to the Lilly expatriates with their absurd pistil regeneration hypothesis gives away your game. We've seen your type before. Now we expect you're going to recklessly throw down against those who would offer a reconciliation among the factious Tulip Clans all while silently promoting the Great Lotus Thesis. You're a bad person.

      Delete
    8. I'm heavily on the Gladiola side of the debate as I've stated repeatedly.

      With that cleared up, are you suggesting the AR-15 be replaced with a better choice of weapon or that the EPD not have rifles at all?

      The problem with ideologically rigid positions is that they fail to give answers to the hard questions. They are timid to reality.

      Worse still, they encourage people to attack the people who make things happen and who actually balance real world issues outside of the ideological bubble.

      It's easy to wave signs and chant slogans and pretend to be better than others because you hold the most idealistic opinion. What's difficult is when a woman with a gun walks up to a car with a passenger in it, and you have to guess what she's about to do.

      So, let's try to answer the hard question: Should the EPD have rifles? If so, which one?

      You'll be less bored once you start thinking hard about these sorts of things. Hard problems are more interesting than easy 'solutions'.

      Delete
  9. Nicely played annonymous. "Catch and release." Good one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time with your childish humour.

      Delete