Andrew Traver: Liar.

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/11/robert-farago/missing-andrew-traver-tv-interview-surface/

(its a video, by NBC)

"Atf had us shoot one..."



Traver: "it will empty this entire magazine in about three seconds"

He is a lying sack o shit. Too bad he can't be charged with perjury over a piece like that. He shouldn't be able to lead a girl scout troop.

The Truth About Semi-Auto Firearms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

Andrew Traver an ATF, agent who is looking to advance, agrees to aid the Chicago media in taking advantage of a true tragedy involving the killing of an innocent 14 year old girl. The Chicago media hoped to exploit this tragedy to promote their gun control agenda and chose to use an actual fully automatic assault rifle to falsely demonstrate the power of a semi-auto "assault weapon". Andrew Traver willing decides to cooperate in the filming of this piece of propaganda. He either has no knowledge of firearms or is in fact a person who is willing to distort the truth (dare I say lie) in order to advance in his profession.

And now he wants to lead the corruption ridden and incompetent ATF?

Officer Leroy Pyle of the San Jose police department, who made the linked video in this reply, would be a far better choice. He at least is honest and knowledgeable about firearms.

...nominating Andrew Traver to lead the ATF has to be Exhibit A. And the genius is that, because the NFA and the GCA give the ATF a metric assload of discretion in how it chooses to enforce those laws, you can impose all sorts of restrictions while completely bypassing the legislative process.

Viva!

yup

to support gun control.

The end justifies the means, right?

Deliberately deceptive. Manipulative. No wonder he is your hero.

Why would you support him? Do you think this strengthens your position?

You are so blinded by your hatred of guns that you cannot be at all honest about the ATF.

away at targets or walking around with them slung over their shoulder after Obama was elected.

I'll take honest dissent and disagreement any day.

streets. Sure, you can't buy an automatic one legally -- but as several of your buddies have posted, it's easy to modify them.

I'll tell you where.

The issue being discussed by the media there is so called "assault weapons". Semi-automatic weapons with features some folks like you don't like.


The weapon handed to the media BY ATF TRAVER to demonstrate on the issue is a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon. NOT a so called "assault weapon".


The issue of converting semis to full auto is a non-sequitur, since the video in question had nothing to do with it.


Traver misrepresented the issue to the american people, and lied doing so.

Oh, and the people that usually make the claims about weapons converted...are your buddies, not ours.

We on the other hand, tend to take the word of people like detective Jimmy Trahin:

"Los Angeles Detective Jimmy Trahin testifying before the California State Assembly,"in my 12 years within the unit, considering the enormous amount of firearms we have taken into custody, and that's over 50,000 I would say, and these include ones from the hardcore gangs and the drug dealers, our unit has never, ever had one ak47 converted, one Ruger Mini 14 converted, an H&K 8193...never converted, an AR180 never converted, so this media blitz of these military style assault weapons being converted to fully automatic is not true."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30


Aww, were sorry you didn't win, but you wont go home empty handed:

I think the message is clear -- such guns are a threat to society and really aren't needed by anyone, except those who can't enjoy life without such weapons.

I admit the auto vs. semi-auto aspect is not clear. But neither is the propaganda you guys spread around.

Not clear?


Its CRYSTAL CLEAR hoyt.

The legal definition and functional definition of semi automatic versus fully automatic are NIGHT AND DAY.

As career ATf he bloody well knows the difference, hes a former fucking seal for cripes sake.

You go ahead though, carry his water...


"such guns are a threat to society"

If they're a threat to society, how come theyre responsible for less deaths than hands and feet are?

"really aren't needed by anyone"

Lots of things aren't needed by anyone Hoyt.

Like your attempts to change the direction of this discussion, for example.

Do you have anything to say about that, or is against your "baser instincts"?


:rofl:

If you can't see it, after its been CLEARLY ad unequivocally explained to you...you may never see it.


I imagine others will be along to attempt to show you your error.



Then again, maybe you're ok with government lieing to the American people if you agree with the lie...

Since you are attracted to such guns, you don't want them controlled . . . . . .more on street.

CNN faked that story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60aIaNZA0h8

I know that hurts but its the truth.

CNN deflected blame claiming their reporter, John Zarella, had been duped by Ken Jenne, the Broward County sheriff who set up the demonstration. *

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030520.asp#4



On May 21 the Miami Herald reported:



* Ken Jenne seems to have had a well-documented problem with honesty.

Both should be banned in my opinion.

You are deliberately being disingenuous, and unless you are really that genuinely obtuse. You may feel they should all be banned, which is your prerogative. What is not fine, and you are intellectually dissolute, if you claim otherwise, is a deliberate deception presented as fact with your active support and unabashed admiration.

The point of that piece was pure and simple to present the banned weapon as somehow being more dangerous than the legal weapon. The same with Traver's use of machine guns as stunt doubles for semi-autos. The point was to get the general population to associate machine guns with the expired assault weapons ban. If they had been doing a piece on crime and had chosen to show only pictures gang-signing thugs you would have decried that as deceptive and a racist.

But as they are reinforcing misconceptions you support, you have no qualms in embracing them. They may be lying bastards, but they are your lying bastards. You make it plain, that lie you like is better than a truth you don't. You are tickled shitless to twist the truth as you see fit.

I collect WW2 weapons and would love to have a Thompson sub machine gun for my collection but they are outside my price range.

As well as being a great collectable they are also a great investment as firearms do not lose their value.

I think at least half the folks supporting/promoting guns here are in it for the money as much as anything. Killing power and thrills are a bonus.

The '94 AWB didn't apply to the Tommy gun. Fifty round drums are absolutely legal, 100%. Pistol grips? no problem! Threaded barrels? no sweat. Barrel under 16 inches? Nope. Folding or detachable stocks? Nope, none of the allegedly evil features listed by the ban.

Absolutely NONE of the provisions of the expired ban applied to the Thompson.

Hoyt will have no clue why.....

It is quite simple, but the entire concept is totally and completely beyond his comprehension. In fact, not a single solitary machine gun, not the ones in my collection, or any other were affected at all by the Assault Weapons Ban.

He still won't get it. They all lack the one defining characteristic that made the ban apply.

He still doesn't have a clue!

You're too late. I already have several in my collection and the Tax Stamps that make them legal.



What is in my collection is a lot less likely to do near the criminal mischief the money you spend on dope does. The guns in my safe ain't killing Mexicans, your insatiable desire for a little 420 is.

It has proven to be worthwhile. Prior to 1968, having the Army send me to places where I could find historically significant items was a perk. I am likewise certain you are still clueless.

I enjoy the smoke and clatter of an R-1340 coming to life on a cold morning at the airport. Long, long, before Messrs Pratt and Whitney decided to name their aircraft engines after stinging insects they were machinists and toolmakers for Samuel Colt.

It's always been about the history and craftsmanship. As soldier, with combat service in two wars I appreciate what they can do, and not as an abstract exercise in manufactured outrage.

using a bobcat?

The end justifies the means, right?

They could have had a cute little baby sucking on the barrel without a shot being fired and I -- and millions more -- would still think such guns are bad.

Similarly, they could have had a bunch of Tbaggers walking around with them slung over their shoulders and I'd still think they are bad.

Obviously some people don't care as long as it suits their very narrowly defined agenda.

No wonder most of the stuff you write gets laughed at by serious people with even a faint grasp of the issues and facts involved.

don't really pay attention to the gun/anti-gun debate.

And if they do pay attention, how is it that the gun rights crowd are winning at every turn, could it be that most of those 310 million support the gun rights crowd?

Since you seem to have the fantasy that everyone without a CCW permit agrees with you, why can't you get CCW repealed in any state? You can't even seem to get a referendum on it anywhere.

Your 310 million "friends" would seem not to give a shit about the gun laws or may even be supporting the loosening of gun laws. Are they apathetic, lazy or stupid?

Oh and we laugh at you for totally different reasons.

Popular doesn't mean right; hence the existence of the argumentum ad numerum fallacy.

Incidentally, the US Census Bureau projects the current population at 311.3 million, so either your math skills or your research skills need work.

And once again, you assert that everyone in the US who does not have a CCW permit doesn't want one, and fully shares your position on CCW. This is bullshit, given that there at least some people in "no issue" states like Illinois and Wisconsin, and restrictive "may issue" states like California, New Jersey and New York, who might want a CCW permit but aren't able to get one (due to lack of wealth, celebrity and/or political connections). Then there's persons who are completely ineligible for a permit because they're under 21, and/or have a felony conviction. And ultimately, there may be any number of people who have no desire to own a CCW permit, but have no objection to people who do getting one.

I've pointed this out on at least two occasions, but you keep repeating this claim even though you know it almost certainly cannot be true. Why? Why do you keep repeating it? It's such obvious bullshit that I cannot believe you believe it yourself, so who do you think you're fooling?

these graduates from the "Hoyt School of Urban Warfare" and represent them as being on the streets of Chicago. At least if the call those AK's they will be right 3 out of 4 times.

Or (insert unpopular religious belief of choice here) is evil, or segregating the disabled from the rest of society, or any number of

things.


Kindly go back to watching how your NanoTag options are doing, and leave the argumentum ad populum out of DU...

And Traver was being intentionally dishonest in making it appear as if they were. You obviously don't have any problem with our government officials lying to advance their view, I do.

Cite please? I am one of the folks here that could make a full automatic rifle and i've never said it was easy.

Please directly quote any pro rights member of this forum stating that

Don't see much reason debating "how easy." Let's just say any of us who want to do it can.

Besides, any of us can fire a semi-auto fast enough to shoot a lot of rounds in a short period of time.

"Don't see much reason debating "how easy." Let's just say any of us who want to do it can."


If you really think thats true...well...the following quote applies to you:

"It's deeply saddening that someone would consider his/her opinions about an important public policy issue to be worth spewing in public when s/he is so totally ignorant of the subject matter, and so deeply uninterested in learning the minimum necessary to have an opinion of even minimal value."


Of course, to see how much of a problem it really is - see how many people are actually doing what you claim is so easy, lets see what a professional has to say:

"Los Angeles Detective Jimmy Trahin testifying before the California State Assembly,"in my 12 years within the unit, considering the enormous amount of firearms we have taken into custody, and that's over 50,000 I would say, and these include ones from the hardcore gangs and the drug dealers, our unit has never, ever had one ak47 converted, one Ruger Mini 14 converted, an H&K 8193...never converted, an AR180 never converted, so this media blitz of these military style assault weapons being converted to fully automatic is not true."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

If you've finished your first plate, I'll be glad to get you another:

I also happen to be a machinist by trade hoyt, and IF I really wanted to, I could do it.

The average person however, can't read a micrometer, can't program G-codes, can't read geometrical dimensioning and tolerancing, and wouldn't know the first thing about metalwork beyond a bench grinder or a dremel tool.


And, I'd wager that included you.

So your claim that "Let's just say any of us who want to do it can" falls flat on its face.

And the two who've said they can - of which I am one - have both told you that it is NOT by any means easy.

If I had a machine shop, plans, an engineering staff, material, a tool crib 3 shifts, QC personel (IOW if I owned a firearms factory) I don't think it would be too difficult but in my garage?

C'mon

I suspect many more can. And, given the right gun, most of us could do it -- might mess one up, but eventually would get it right. Point is still the same, the guns can be, and are, converted.

In any event, semi-auto is just as bad -- probably worse as Giffords and those killed can testify. In most non-military applications, an auto is all but worthless after a few rounds.

Like always, you guys get hung up on one little fact and miss the big picture -- these guns kill, these guns appeal to the wrong people, there are too many of these guns on the street, we'd be better off without them (well most of us, some here would go into a deep depression), etc.

Don't see much reason debating "how easy."

No one asked you to debate "how easy" your were asked to back up your claim please do so

t as several of your buddies have posted, it's easy to modify them.

You stated that it has been said that it's easy to modify a semi auto to fire full auto.

please directly quote even one instance of one of Beevul's buddies ( I assume this is the pro rights crowd) stating that it's easy to modify a semiautomatic weapon to fire full auto.

ides, any of us can fire a semi-auto fast enough to shoot a lot of rounds in a short period of time.

Did you pull your back moving that goal post?

And, given the right gun, most of us could do it -- might mess one up, but eventually would get it right.

Most of you would blow your hands off trying

come on, let's see your proof. You keep saying it's done with no proof.

"Like always, you guys get hung up on one little fact and miss the big picture "
Quit backpedaling, you made the statement, back it up.

Come up with your proof or you will lose whatever credibility you had left.

The fact of the matter is, the technology to manufacture fully-automatic weapons is now about 100 years old.

There is nothing mysterious about fully-automatic fire control mechanisms.

There are instructions on the web right now for how to build a fully functional, fully-automatic STEN submachine gun out of pipe, using simple hand tools and maybe a welder.

People in India, Pakistan, and other third-world countries routinely manufacture knock-offs of modern firearms using very primitive shops by modern standards. The most sophisticated tool they might use is a drill press. The rest of the work is done with files and other hand tools.

So yes, virtually anyone, with a little research, can manufacture a firearm, even a fully-automatic firearm, from scratch.

A machinist could do it easily.

But despite this, such home-made or converted machine guns are hardly ever used in crime. See the post above from the police officer who never saw one his entire career.

Yes anyone can do it. Thanks. And anyone can kill a bunch of folks without converting one.

Of course. In 2007, the last year of WISQARS data, some 30,000 people were killed in violence-related firearm deaths, virtually none, if not none, of them from machine guns.

But this has nothing to do with your original hand-wringing about how easy it is to convert semi-automatic firearms into machine guns, which stemmed from the video showing machine guns and trying to pass them off as being in common use by criminals.

Yes, anyone with a little bit of research and mechanical skill can manufacture a machine gun, or convert a semi-automatic weapon one into a machine gun.

The point is, this almost never happens. Look at the quote above from the police offer who in his entire career never encountered one.

Starret makes digital micrometers now http://ecatalog.starrett.com/Default.aspx#

But the inside set would fuck 'em all up

And then theres the understanding of surface finishes and about twenty or so other things that might as well be egyptian hieroglyphs - where the average joe is concerned.

and a coppy of Machinery's Handbook

Had a tattoo of Dave Gingery on his left buttock .
http://www.lindsaybks.com/dgjp/dave/mem/mem4.html
Rust in peace Dave .

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=verneer+scale+image&view=detail&id=A7378C8C3E7E132F8B42854610824BEC6F8484A5&first=0&qpvt=verneer+scale+image&FORM=IDFRIR


How many here can read a verneer scale?

A mill: (Preferably a VF3 Cost 250,000$)

A lathe: I believe there is a special type of lathe for turning barrels but for an AK I could probably get by w/ a Haas TL2 (100,00$)

I would think I'd want heat treated stock and i sure as hell couldn't send out my totally illegal AK out for heat treating so I need a kiln.

Tooling isn't cheap these days either

Plans can be had on the internet and I have the tools

So now I just need a place to set up my illegal operation and a week or so to turn out the first article

I don't see the easy

ETA BTW Am I chrome plating the bore? that's another 100 grand

Don't see much reason debating "how easy."

No one asked you to debate "how easy" your were asked to back up your claim please do so

but as several of your buddies have posted, it's easy to modify them.

You stated that it has been said that it's easy to modify a semi auto to fire full auto.

please directly quote even one instance of one of Beevul's buddies ( I assume this is the pro rights crowd) stating that it's easy to modify a semiautomatic weapon to fire full auto.

Besides, any of us can fire a semi-auto fast enough to shoot a lot of rounds in a short period of time.

Did you pull your back moving that goal post?

So is making an atomic bomb.

Please show us all of the semi auto rifles that are being converted to full auto, you should be able to find plenty of news pieces to cite for us, right? It's so easy and happening so often, find it for us, you said it was happening, cite it.

I have to marvel at your ability to claim "it's pretty easy" and then, practically without drawing breath, stating that you don't see any point in discussing "how easy" it is. Here's a tip: if you don't want your assertions questions, don't make them.

In this context, you appear to be using the word "easy" to mean "theoretically feasible." That's not what it's generally understood to mean. I hate to resort to dic-swinging, but more common definitions of "easy" are "posing no difficulty; requiring little effort," and nobody's claimed that converting a semi-auto to full auto is either.

This applies in particular to semi-automatic firearms that are legal for sale in the United States. The ATF routinely prohibits the manufacture and import of designs it deems to be "readily convertible." Converting an ATF-approved AR-15 or AK variant isn't simply a matter of swapping out the sear and the bolt carrier (if you can even get an autofire-capable bolt carrier to begin with). These weapons are purposely designed not to accept parts from their selective-fire counterparts, and modifying them to be able to do so actually requires adding metal to the existing weapon, where lugs and ferrules have been machined away.

By way of illustration, see this page from OlyArms comparing a semi-auto-only AR bolt carrier to a full-auto one: http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?Itemid=42&id=29&option=com_content&task=view
As the page explains, on a semi-auto-only bolt carrier, the lower reinforcement lug is partly or entirely machined away, making incapable of tripping a full-auto sear.

The upshot of this is that it's arguably easier (note: comparative form) to manufacture an autofire-capable lower receiver, sear and bolt carrier from scratch than it to convert existing ones that were designed to only function on semi-auto.

It gets even more complex when we're dealing with weapons like Uzi Carbines and Pistols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzi#Civilian_variants). The original Uzi SMG fires from an open bolt, using a fixed firing pin on the bolt face. To comply with the ATF's demands, the civilian variants have been redesigned to fire from a closed bolt, using a striker-activated floating firing pin. The semi-auto-only variants have parts that prevent a full-auto bolt from fitting into the gun, and a block welded into the grip frame that prevents the fire selector from being pushed into the "auto" position. A semi-auto version can be converted, and a few companies did so prior to 1986, but it is by no means "easy."


Not as many as using full auto. You'll find, if you care to look, that there are remarkably few armies in the world that issue semi-auto-only variants of submachine guns, assault rifles, LMGs, GPMGs etc. There's a reason for that, and it's not to save wear and tear on the soldiers' index fingers.

distortions, slurs, character attacks, misdirections and disingenuousness, and now you endorse outright lies.

You have not debated in good faith here for some time. Until such time as your responses are direct and honest, I will no longer engage with you. Good day to you sir.

I'm not done with you yet.

Notice while the ATF agent demonstrates, he is firing controlled bursts using good firing technique. When Traver hands the hapless girl reporter the machine gun, it is obvios she is clueless. First, she adopts a sway-back off balance, off the hip, spray firing position as if she learned to shoot by listening to a Carolyn McCarthy news conference. While she struggles to control the weapon, and the unanticipated recoil, you see Traver's hand come into the frame to keep her from falling over backwards. The obvious result is that she wildly firing all over the range and backstop. What better way to reinforce the "wild stray bullet" meme in the opening of the video.

"...but as several of your buddies have posted, it's easy to modify them."

Easy is a relative term.




If you recognize all the tools in the picture and know how to use them, the problem is a simple one. On the other hand if you have the mechanical aptitude of a turnip and think a "flat bastard" is some kind of insult, it may be beyond your skill set.

In the picture is an AR-15 lower receiver in the process of being machined on a milling machine. It is clamped up to a right angle plate made to give an accurate surface 90 degrees to the table. The dial indicator is there to check the setup to ensure the workpiece is parallel to the table.

It is absolutely legal for an individual to build a semi-automatic rifle from scratch for their own use. There are hobbyists who are perfectly capable of metalwork of sufficient accuracy to make completely functional firearms. Obviously someone with sufficient skill to mill a semi-automatic receiver from a block of 7075-T6 alloy could certainly make a full auto receiver just as readily, but for the moral restraint of Title 26, Section 5845 of the US Code.

And I'm not risking 10 years per count for a bunch of one off illegal weapons

Don't see much reason debating "how easy."

No one asked you to debate "how easy" your were asked to back up your claim please do so

but as several of your buddies have posted, it's easy to modify them.

You stated that it has been said that it's easy to modify a semi auto to fire full auto.

please directly quote even one instance of one of Beevul's buddies ( I assume this is the pro rights crowd) stating that it's easy to modify a semiautomatic weapon to fire full auto.

Besides, any of us can fire a semi-auto fast enough to shoot a lot of rounds in a short period of time.

Did you pull your back moving that goal post?

a good deal of time, the right materials and tools i could make that mod as well. I have spent years around a mill and lathe, amongst
other machining equipment.

But to make the claim that it would be easy.. not me.

Please show where any of the RKBA posters here have claimed that semi-auto to ful auto conversions are easy. All the posts I have seen are about how difficult it is to do that. Converting to slam-fire doesn't count as that is DANGEROUS and the gun can blow up in your face.

that Hoyt completely ingores any post asking for a cite

You keep posting that as if it will become true the more you post it?

Was anyone proposing they become head of ATF?


In doing so did they LIE to the American people?


I'm getting ahead of myself...


Did you have a point?

Thanks for the post, beevul. That's one of the most outrageous examples of pure bullshit I've ever seen.

:kick:

Like I said:

Maybe you're ok with government lieing to the American people if you agree with the lie.

"Naw, it gets the point across. You just don't like the point."


The evidence continues to mount.

Do you expect anyone to believe that you'd be as silent about "toters and gun promoters lying" as you have been about Travers lies?


Do you?

Really?





Uh...no thanks.

This piece has been dissected before, and, as was noted below, CNN retracted it.

The intent of this video was obviously to portray civilian-legal AK-47s as fully-automatic machine guns. It was also the intent to show them as being somehow super-powerful. It was also the intent of this video to show them as being commonly used in crime.

All of these things are false.

The use of machine guns in crime is exceedingly rare. The last one I have heard about was many years ago committed by a police officer. I'm sure there may have been one or two since but there just aren't many crimes committed with machine guns.

Rifles in general, let alone assault rifles, account for only about 300 homicides every year in the United States. This is half as many people as are killed using hands and feet. Rifles are just not often used for murder, and for crime in general, probably because of their lack of concealability.

The AK-47 is not a particularly powerful round. There are many other rifles that fire much more powerful rounds. In fact, most rifles will penetrate standard police body armor, which are designed to stop their most common threat - handguns.