It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CNN thinks an UZI is a rifle?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Today on CNN was a story about an incident over 25 years ago.

www.cnn.com...
"Slaughter at McDonald's changed how police operate"

In this article they state that
"At 3:40 p.m. on July 18, 1984, Huberty carried a long-barreled Uzi semiautomatic rifle, a pump-action shotgun and a handgun into a McDonald's in San Ysidro, an enclave of San Diego, California"

They clearly keep referring to an UZI as a Rifle.

This just proves the point that CNN does not know anything about guns at all. They seriously need to hire educated reporters like some of us on ATS.

The UZI is not a rifle at all, it is a sub-machine gun. And according to sources, smaller variants can be considered Machine Pistols.

"The Uzi (Hebrew: עוזי‎, officially cased as UZI) is a related family of open bolt, blowback-operated submachine guns. Smaller variants are considered to be machine pistols."
en.wikipedia.org...

The main point here is, CNN wants to take everyones guns away so bad, but yet at the same time they know nothing about guns at all.

Perhaps they should educate themselves about guns before they make such oppressive opinions about them, and try to push the public to create legislation that disarms everyone of their "UZI Rifles".




[edit on 26-7-2009 by muzzleflash]

[edit on 26-7-2009 by muzzleflash]




posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


If the Uzi in question is the legal variant with an 18" barrel and only fires semi automatic, it is technically considered a rifle, a carbine to be more specific.

The standard Israeli version with the snub barrel and fires on full auto is considered a sub machine gun.

I do agree with the fact that CNN constantly gets its firearms facts wrong. They love to call anything used in a crime an "assault weapon" by definition.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
My 2 cents on taking peoples guns away is that it's more or less a bad idea.

Will it stop some gun crimes? Sure. But it definitely wont stop all of them.

If you ask me, it's like the prohibition of drugs argument. There is a strong majority of people who use recreational drugs responsibly, and a minority that, say, drinks then drives. That's dangerous, and many people get hurt. But is the answer to prohibit alcohol? We tried that, and it was a disaster.

The same thing is true of guns. 99% of gun users are safe, responsible citizens. There is a tiny minority of criminals that use guns for intimidation and crime. That minority wont be stopped by a blanket gun ban. Nor will banning guns stop crime, or murder.

In fact, it's probably a better idea to let MORE people carry guns, for the simple reason that overall, there are a lot more "good guys" than "bad guys." And if someone walks into a store I'm in, with an UZI, and starts shooting people, I want everybody else in that store to be packing heat too, so that scum bag can be stopped "DEAD" in his tracks.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by slicobacon
 


A star for you. But the media is generally ignorant when it comes to firearms. Why is that? What happens if a reporter on a newspaper is found out to be a gun owner/user? Will they fire them? (The reporter, not the gun.) That would be a real awkward moment when you showcase your automatic weapons collection to your fellow reporters.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I just looked at the article,




Crouching behind a pickup outside a McDonald's in 1984, police officer Miguel Rosario realized his .38-caliber six-shooter was no match for a killer with an Uzi semiautomatic rifle and a shotgun. The slaughter that followed led San Diego and other cities to better arm, equip and train their elite tactical officers


seems they missed the commas,

Crouching behind a pickup outside a McDonald's in 1984, police officer Miguel Rosario realized his .38-caliber six-shooter was no match for a killer with an Uzi, semiautomatic rifle, and a shotgun. The slaughter that followed led San Diego and other cities to better arm, equip and train their elite tactical officers



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Well the article did not mention if the barrel was longer than 16inches or not. And I personally was not aware that even a long barrel UZI could be considered a rifle, and I have always heard it referred to as a SMG or MP.

I guess I am the fool today.

I'll look further into the case to find out exactly what size the weapon was, and if it was indeed over 16inches than I'll eat my foot today.

DoH!

[edit on 26-7-2009 by muzzleflash]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I have an UZI and I refer to it as an UZI, I also have referred to it as a rifle because it has a butt and a long barrel, and it isn't always beneficial to to say I have a couple handguns, a few rifles, and an UZI. It is Sub-Machine gun that often rolls out 2-3 shot bursts even though it was modified to be semi-auto. Pretty sloppy firearm in my opinion. Think I would rather save my rounds for the pistol(or handgun) and keep it in safe just in case we have any 'Boys In The Hood' moments in the neighborhood, lol. Machine Guns would fall into the same category as Assault Rifles when describing a firearm in this class I believe. CNN may have also chose to not allow the gun issue to draw more attention than their headline. I think if you are in the media, be it digital or print, you often have to put yourself in a detached position to cover the various types of good and bad stories and often times the words just exploit how unaware the authors are of the subjects they choose to cover. In my opinion the people who died were more important than the gun used to kill them.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I really do dislike the serious tone against guns. It seems extremely obvious that they wanted to make certain guns, such as semi-auto rifles look bad.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Well, while trying to find out the size of this guy's UZI, i ran across this post in another forum.

"CNN Keepin' up the Skeer"

www.grouchyconservativepundits.com...

quote from the poster in relation to the same CNN article

"30 'armor-piercing' bullets out of WHAT? An Uzi with a 30rd mag, firing 9mm pistol ammo. IF that's what CNN is going to call 'armor-piercing', they might as well call EVERY bullet 'armor piercing'.

Then note the attempt to demonize the Mini-14 in there as well, calling it 'military style'.

The sick irony is that for all the bleating about the officer Rosario being 'outgunned', HIS Mini-14 in .223 Remington was by far the most powerful weapon there that day, in terms of penetration."

So even tho my initial assumption may have been incorrect, since they do not care to give any specifics, there are more issues with this article apparently.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Note:

Under the legal definition, ie what I have to put in a search warrant or arrest warrant, everything that fires a projectile is classified as either a ...

Pistol
Revolver
Rifle
or
Shotgun
(Excluding cannons and mortars of course)

A submachine gun is either classified as a pistol or rifle depending on the length of the barrel..

A long barreled Uzi would be considered a rifle..

Semper



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I admit I am not a gun expert, as I learned today that in some cases you could actually call an UZI a rifle


And CNN should be on top of all of this giving detailed information and sources backing up their BS...

But as the poster in the other thread mentioned, there are far more inconsistencies with the article even granted my initial thoughts led me to an incorrect assumption.

But I admit I dont know anything. CNN however acts like they are the ultimate source of info. So they should have to abide by far higher standards than me.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


can you consider 9mm ammunition armor piercing?

please educate me

and again i apologize for being wrong, if the barrel was indeed over 16inches (still cannot find any references to the length of the UZI)

And your saying that the law does not recognize the terms "SMG or MP"? how weird...

so a Tec9 and a Mac10 are considered Handguns or what? This is so weird and confusing. Blah I am utterly baffled now.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by muzzleflash]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


There is 9mm Armor Piercing ammo although not available generally.

It can be loaded by individuals that know what they are doing...

My guess is they are calling "Full Metal Jacket" armor piercing and in that they are wrong..

They usually try and inflame everything that way..

I saw a news report last month were they called a "Mini-14" a full auto assault weapon..


They constantly refer to a Glock as Full Auto...

They have no clue

Semper



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Remember that most laws were written WAY before SMG's or MP's etc...

The descriptors are accurate enough for charging purposes..

We generally get very descriptive in the narrative, but for categories all we have are stated above and that is generally what is released to the press..

Semper



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I think some glocks may have burst (3shot) but I have never heard of a full auto Glock handgun.


That would be awesome though.

Thank you for the educational replies everyone, I guess I learn something new everyday.

I really appreciate you guys learning me a few things. I do not have any guns nor have I ever even shot a gun, so I am still a layman.

But I just have a hard time trusting CNN. So thats why I put a question mark in my thread title.


[edit on 26-7-2009 by muzzleflash]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
My six year old has a plasitc dinosaur, when I can wield it, and bash it over someones head, is it then, an assault weapon?

Will CNN call for all my kids toys to be taken away next?
Or will there be just a three day waiting period the next time I buy a "big bird"?

-pathetic-
-Hey, CNN, "this is my weapon, this is my gun. One is for shooting. . . . "




posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Well the article did not mention if the barrel was longer than 16inches or not. And I personally was not aware that even a long barrel UZI could be considered a rifle, and I have always heard it referred to as a SMG or MP.

I guess I am the fool today.

I'll look further into the case to find out exactly what size the weapon was, and if it was indeed over 16inches than I'll eat my foot today.

DoH!

[edit on 26-7-2009 by muzzleflash]


No Sir,

you're not the fool today. The MSM has gotten almost the entire nation, esp. the "soccer moms", older liberals, yuppies, and others to class all manner of firearms as "dangerous assault weapons".

It's intentional and fits in with their plans nicely.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
From what I've been able to find on this, Huberty had a "long-barreled Uzi semiautomatic rifle".

So, the Uzi variant he most likely had was the Uzi Carbine


Uzi Carbine: standard Uzi with barrel extended to 450mm (16 inches), designed to meet minimum legal rifle overall length requirements for civilian sales in the United States when the stock is folded.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I think some glocks may have burst (3shot) but I have never heard of a full auto Glock handgun.


That would be awesome though.

Thank you for the educational replies everyone, I guess I learn something new everyday.

I really appreciate you guys learning me a few things. I do not have any guns nor have I ever even shot a gun, so I am still a layman.

But I just have a hard time trusting CNN. So thats why I put a question mark in my thread title.


[edit on 26-7-2009 by muzzleflash]


Pretty Awesome




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join