Can anyone verify that these postcards are legit and not a Photoshop?

I found these floating around the blogosphere, but I have no idea who originally posted them. If they are real, I think they are a pretty good example of why the gun-control lobby lost its credibility through the '90s and early '00s.














I assume that these were put out by a state-level Illinois gun-control organization, if they are even real. The only suggestion I have that they aren't real is the rather remarkable dishonesty, which might suggest they are a spoof, or (worse) a false-flag effort by repubs to make the Dem reps in question look foolish. Can anyone verify these as real or fake?


Added on edit: Supposely these images were scanned from postcards and uploaded by someone from Illinois Carry, but I cannot verify that.

and have nothing to do with any proposed gun-control legislation whatsoever.


The following is a police/military restricted machinegun, not a civilian "assault weapon":



Simple possession outside of government service without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony and has been for 75 years.


The following is not a .50 caliber "sniper rifle", but a police/military restricted .50 caliber M2 machinegun:



Again, simple possession outside of government service without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony and has been for 75 years.



The weapon on the right in the following pic is again a military/police restricted machinegun:



The gun on the left is a .50 caliber non-automatic precision rifle, which were developed for civilian long-range target shooting and later marketed to the military for sniping radar sets and immobilizing parked aircraft. At least in the United States, they aren't used for "hunting humans," as no one has ever been murdered with one in the United States.


The "definition" of "assault rifle" in the first card is hilarious. An assault rifle is actually a military/police restricted rifle firing a reduced-power cartridge and capable of being switched between single shots and full auto (or burst mode) at the flip of a switch; those are restricted under the same laws as machineguns. What the card wants you to think it's talking about are civilian "assault weapons," which are non-automatic, small- and intermediate-caliber civilian guns with modern styling.


For a little perspective on the level of fearmongering here, check out the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon. Go down to the entry for Illinois and go across to the Rifles column. Compare the number of murders statewide to the number involving any type of rifle.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2007, Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon

There were 463 murders in the state of Illinois in 2007. All rifles COMBINED, including those dubbed "assault weapons" by the gun-control lobby, accounted for only 4 of them (yes, four).

The add is partisan propoganda, not a reasoned argument.
Among very many other things, the straw man definition of "assault weapon".
This terminology devolves from Nazi Germany. During WW2, the Germans developed a class of small arms which were innovative, having three characteristics:
1)detachable magazine.
2)select fire capability. Can fire single shot (semiautomatic) or like a machine gun (fully automatic)
3)chambered for an intermediate cartridge. That is, more powerful than a pistol, but half as powerful as a rifle. A short range - medium range firearm.
The Germans called this "Sturm Gewehr" which we translate as Assault Rifle.
The MP44 is an example of a rifle having all the traits of a real Assault Rifle, and influenced subsequent military small arms design considerably, most notably the AK47 and M16.

So to pick apart the straw man "definition", one which I'm sure can't be found in Webster's, my comments in brackets.

Assault Rifle - (n) a high-powered {false, intermediate powered}, high-capacity {false, standard capacity} military weapon designed for assassinations {false, designed as a service arm, not a suppressed pistol or sniper rifle}, shooting down aircraft {false, that's what heavy machine guns are for}, and other violent attacks {false, they are designed to detonate cartridges}. Legally available for purchase in Illinois. See photo. {false and false, that's a photo of a uniformed soldier with a light machine gun. Can't buy those at your local store.}

The shrill, prejudiced "definition" isn't informative, does not bring the reader nearer to truth, and is blatant propaganda.

A factual, meritorious position has no need of, and is damaged by, misrepresentation, distortion, lies, and hysteria.

The number of true 'Assault Rifles' (machine guns) sold in the US is very small, and is heavily and fully regulated by the Federal government.

Very many semiautomatic rifles, however, are sold commonly throughout the US, and are mislabeled by gun opponents as machine guns, I presume deliberately. Incidentally, semiautomatic arms bearing superficial resemblances to "assault rifles" are great for hunting deer and other small game. But the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

What angers gun owners and generates organized opposition to gun campaigns, like this one, is the fact that the campaign strives to remove semiautomatic rifles from the possession of people by lying to voters, leaving voters with the impression that there are machine guns everywhere. This is cynical, probably deliberate, and tells me that the proponents of this position have no compelling factual basis to advance their argument.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

(Emphases in bold mine.)
From the Conclusion of Assault Weapons and Accessories in America (http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm), published by the Violence Policy Center in 1988. This is the paper in which Josh Sugarmann essentially coined the term "assault weapon" to indicate semi-auto-only variants of military selective-fire weapons, and as we can see, he practically urges the gun control lobby to capitalize on the public's ignorance, a logical consequence of which must be that the gun control lobby must in no circumstances enlighten the public as to the difference.

He helps it along in the Introduction (http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaintro.htm) by defining "assault firearms" as including both semi-auto-only weapons and weapons capable of automatic fire, and using highly ambiguous language to boot:

Is he describing two classes of weapon, each with distinct modes of fire, or is he describing one class of weapons that can operate in both modes (i.e. is selective-fire)? It hardly matters, because throughout the rest of the paper, the term "assault weapon" is used to indicate semi-auto-only weapon, rendering the mention of automatic fire irrelevant and, above all, misleading.

and "We need them for protection" ... that sounds right out of the average RW nut these days ... "OBAMA'S A SOCIALIST!!!"

.. and supported the 1968 GCA which established the 'prohibited classes' of people who cannot get guns, the Brady bill instant check system.

It's a common, huge strawman to paint pro-gun groups as supporting 'any gun for any person'.

now it's that well-known adjective "Democrat".

You're not even trying, are you?

I’m a libertarian dear, so long as you neither pick my pocket, nor break my leg I don’t care what you do.

I seem to have found common ground(opposing infringement of my freedoms) W/ most of the members here and I'm following forum rules.
Other than the fact that I obliviously threaten your world view, what is your problem?

"Democrat" is not an adjective, except in the smelly mouths of the right wing.

You're a "libertarian", not a libertarian. You really don't get to co-opt the term for your smelly right-wing agenda.


Other than the fact that I obliviously threaten your world view, what is your problem?

:rofl:

Well, it might be your overweening and delusional arrogance - if I cared!

Is a box you check when you register to vote
It is nice to know you're taking such a personal interest in me dear but just so you know I am happily married

Target practice I suppose.

10 bucks a round. How are us poor people gonna shoot back.:)

i love when people say "shooting down airliners"....do you have any idea how hard it is to shoot a stationary target from 1000 yards away where if you are off 1mm from your sights you will be off the target completley?....now lets replace that target with a target over a mile away moving at spees up to 500 mph...easy right?

Incendiary ammo means "heat seaking" you just need to get it close and the bullet will home in on the jet engine.

All .50 cal ammo is heating seeking every anti knows that.

Or at least that is what McCarthy's friends told me.

Barrett Mfg. later took the concept, refined it, and marketed it to the military as an anti-materiel rifle (for taking out radar sets, immobilizing parked aircraft, etc.) in addition to the civilian market, but .50 BMG precision rifles were developed as target rifle, and that's what they have been used for in the United States for the past 25 or 30 years.

I don't own one (can't afford one) and probably never will, but one cannot in any seriousness argue that they are a crime problem in the United States.

It's a rather expensive hobby. The rifles themselves cost upwards of $7000, and the bullets are around $10 a pop.

There has never been a murder in the United States using one of these weapons.

It's a rather pricy weapon, and ammo comes at about $2 a shot for cheap crap, quality competitive handloads go much much higher.

There are few ranges that can even properly field this weapon, so the owners can fully exercise the features. Unlike some balding middle-ager with a lamborgini diablo, which can be 'driven' on normal streets, the .50 can only be used at certain ranges. The shooters are the people who have turned things like the iPod Touch into ballistic computers for calculating windage, trajectory, etc. It's an 'extreme' sport, by way of attention to technical detail.

They are shooting at a level where even your pulse can affect the shot.

AFIK they are not even used for hunting. I expect the round wouldn't have enough dwell time inside the animal for a clean kill, for example.

Even from a pro-gun-control standpoint, howlers like the postcards in the OP are a big reason the U.S. gun-control lobby is now in the sorry shape it's in. Failure to get fundamental facts straight doesn't help your cause.

The fact that NRA might be incorrect about certain things (and they are, and I say that as a member) doesn't mean gun control advocacy groups can't be at least as wrong. If the cards pictured in the OP are in fact genuine, they would be strong evidence that some gun control proponents in Illinois are utterly full of shit.

gone to her site yourself http://www.kathyryg.org/issues.html and looked at her issues but that wasn't your goal was it? No, your goal was to continue the attack on this women via an obviously phony mailing. Great job genius!

I gave her more credit than that; obviously you didn't. If you didn't notice, the cards purport to have been mailed in "support" of more than one candidate, though I would not rule out this being a false-flag op by repubs.

FWIW, Ms. Ryg is no longer an Illinois state senator as of the end of August, and her web site says nothing about her opinions on gun issues. I do imagine that she supported the concept of a state-level ban on modern-looking rifles (otherwise gun-control groups wouldn't be sending out postcards ostensibly in her support), but I would hope she was not involved with the mailers pictured in the OP.

instead of smear her.

It is you that keeps trying to draw that line. Let me state this clearly; I don't think Ms. Ryg or Ms. Jakobsson were responsible for this bullshit. I think the crapola came from the ILLINOIS GUN-CONTROL LOBBY; if you notice, one of the four mentions no candidate, one purports to endorse Ms. Jakobsson, and two purport to support Ms. Ryg.

If I may quote from the text of my OP, which you apparently didn't actually read:



As to whether said lobbyists did so out of sheer incompetence or out of intentional deceit, I have no idea, but I lean toward the incompetence theory.

Again, my beef is with the deceit perpetrated by pro-ban lobbyists, not what a former IL state senator with no mention of guns on her former website thinks about guns. Regardless of how you feel about new rifle bans, BS like that in the OP doesn't do your side of the argument any good.

Would you characterize those gun-ban-lobby mailings as accurate, or deceptive? If accurate, why?

subterfuge, we are getting at what you truly want to know, "Would you characterize those gun-ban-lobby mailings as accurate, or deceptive? If accurate, why?"

Why all the bullshit, why not just ask the dumb-ass question without all the other crap? It's the same shit you post over and over.

You seem to think fearmongering about "assault weapons" and "sniper rifles" should be above criticism, even if it stoops to conflating M249 machineguns and Ma Deuces with civilian rifles. How low does the fearmongering have to go before it becomes not OK to you?

Would you like to seriously attempt to defend the premise that actual NFA Title 2 military assault rifles (never mind non-automatic Title 1 AR-15's and civvie AK's) were "designed for assassinations and shooting down aircraft"?

If pointing out that military machineguns and civilian "assault weapons" are not the same thing is "the same shit I post over and over," then yes, guilty as charged; they are NOT the same thing, either functionally or legally.

Why the fuck would anybody here know?

:shrug:

Perhaps BenEzra hasn't met them.

Now, what they find can't always be trusted, but it provides starting points.

I wouldn't trust this source as far as I could throw it, but one could start here.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1218&mode=threaded

I like not to leave traces at such places, so I read google's cached version:

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:d0a2-zhn6ssJ:illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php%3Fshowtopic%3D1218%26mode%3Dthreaded+kathy+ryg+illinois+gun&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Thank you for contacting me concerning my recent mailing on gun control. I appreciate your input and the information you provided re: the error in the piece. I was negligent in not using an accurate picture and as you point out, the gun pictured in my mailer is a M249 Squad Automatic Weapon and is illegal in Illinois.

The purpose of my mailer was not to mislead the public or to spread false information, but to inform residents about the type of weaponry which are legal for purchase in Illinois. Since the federal assault weapons ban was allowed to expire in September 2004, there is currently no state restriction on the sale or possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and rapid fire magazines that can fire up to 100 bullets without reloading.

While we may not share the same views on all (maybe most) gun legislation, I do want to apologize for sending out a confusing message. Your communication has helped me become better informed on the technicalities of this issue.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me. Please feel free to contact me at <edited to remove phone no.> with any additional questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Kathy Ryg
State Representative – 59th District

and two of the four cards I posted were not from her campaign (one was an issue ad). I am impressed and pleased that she corrected the mistake even though it was probably not hers.

I didn't realize they were so old (2005); that was the year of peak hysteria about the expiration of the 1994 Feinstein law, and a lot of people unfamiliar with the issue believed that the expiration "legalized" the manufacture/import of civilian AK's and whatnot, so there was a great deal of angst in the MSM about it.

that's not a .50 cal sniper rifle in the picture, as the description claims.

.. with this picture tells me we have more education to do.


Lemme see..

1) Assault Rifles are not legal in IL (m249 SAW as is pictured)
2) Made up quotes are hyperbolic straw men
3) Assault Weapons vs Assault Rifles
4)"Armor Piercing"? You mean like grandpa's hunting rifle? That'll pierce a cop's bulletproof vest. Otherwise, armor piercing handgun ammo is already illegal to sell to non-LEO
5) the gun in the second postcard is not a sniper rifle, but a tripod mounted defensive position gun
6) Browning M2 belt-fed on the third one is NOT legal in IL
7) "maximum range" vs "effective range"- effective range is 2,000 yards (max range for a .308 is 1,500 yards, max effective range is ~900 yards.)

Entirely too many red states ?

Because the gun pictured on the right...



...doesn't exist.

Most of the image is a an L4A3 or L4A5 Bren light machine gun, but there's no such thing as a belt-fed Bren; the belt feed and the top of the receiver belong to an FN MAG general purpose machine gun (designated M240 in American service).

This gun is not for sale in Illinois. This gun is not for sale anywhere. This gun is a figment of someone's imagination.

Because if this is what gun-control zealots bring to the table, then RKBA Democrats (And the rest of Americans who value their rights,) will have no trouble protecting the 2nd Amendment.

Those that don't know anything about firearms will believe that trash without question. That first card looks like a SAW in .223/5.56. How the HELL are you going to get close enough let alone UNNOTICED carrying that thing for an "assassination". The only airplane that thing is going to shoot down is a paper airplane. Military aircraft use at least 20mm rounds against other aircraft. That's almost 10x bigger than a .223/5.56.

That second one looks like a .50BMG belt fed mounted on a tri pod. How is THAT a SNIPER rifle??? Sniper Rifles use a SCOPE, are magazine fed and ONE man portable.


Those cards are funny.

No. But somebody's clearly whizzing into the Memory Hole.