Did some more research....
An assault rifle must have "at least" a 300 meter effective range.
M2 carbines are not assault rifles.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
David Chipman admits to wanting to ban AR-15
- Thread starter GreatandPowerfulAhhs
- Start date
Did some more research....
An assault rifle must have "at least" a 300 meter effective range.
M2 carbines are not assault rifles.
When will they decide/vote on Chipmonk for real ?
Not sure if that was him in the circulated picture at Waco , sure resembles him.
I am familiar with a ATF agent from Arkansas that was there. Name is Bill Buford.
He would know If it was ferret face or not ? I remember seeing him soon after Waco at a gun show in Little Rock.
He was strutting around like a rooster
! Think he was wounded that day they killed the kids and others.
Not that it matters but I told Senator Tom Cottons Mom to relay my thoughts about the beady eyed ferret yesterday. I *think* he will vote against him ?
Not sure if that was him in the circulated picture at Waco , sure resembles him.
I am familiar with a ATF agent from Arkansas that was there. Name is Bill Buford.
He would know If it was ferret face or not ? I remember seeing him soon after Waco at a gun show in Little Rock.
He was strutting around like a rooster
! Think he was wounded that day they killed the kids and others.Not that it matters but I told Senator Tom Cottons Mom to relay my thoughts about the beady eyed ferret yesterday. I *think* he will vote against him ?
Last edited:
Why? Why the fuck?
Aren't there more important, and clearly less subjective, things to nail him on?
Be smarter than your enemy
It's like our new favorite game is look at the shiny object while somebody comes behind and picks our pocket. We can't get enough of that shit, and don't realize that the shiny object isn't actually the point of the game.
Why do we have to stop at any one of his shortcomings? We have enough people on that committee that we should be able to bring up EVERY single concern we have and maybe a few we didn't know about until we start asking questions.
My apologies, I cannot match $20. I have a hard rule on keeping all bets to no more than $1.
However, I was already satisfied with the answer when I wrote that. So if you can agree to the $1, I'll post what I found.
I'll go one dollar. If it is good enough for Trading Places, it is good enough for me.
Just remember, if legislation is passed, they won't come to get your AR15 rifles. You will begrudgingly hand them over without a shot fired. How, they will implement laws that will prevent you from living a life without the surrendering these weapons. They've already talked about it. They have the means to make your life a living hell unless you acquiesce.
Someone once said: if they make me a criminal, I'll be the best criminal I can be
My mom used to say the same thing. But she was talking about if I ended up as a garbage man. Or worse, a lawyer.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 9,704
- 20,408
For now...............until that very definition he talked about becomes reality. It is above a 22 cal, mag fed, semi auto rifle.
That's the rub if we have 100 million gun owners and get the 1% er's that a formulable force of one million man militia. If that plays out the carpetbaggers will turn into cicadas and won't show up for another 17 years.
Great. I concede the bet.
I spent 2 hours last night/early this morning going down a very disturbing and dark world of evidence files from Waco that have previously been released.
While I do not have definitive evidence, I found a preponderance of evidence that would indicate it is not Chipman.
Known points:
- Personnel assigned to the siege:
FBI: 668
ATF: 136
U.S. Customs: 6
Waco Police Department: 18
McLennan County Sheriff's office: 17
Texas Rangers (Texas Department of Public Safety): 31
DPS Patrol (Texas Department of Public Safety): 131
U.S. Army: 15
Texas National Guard: 13
- I was able to find and account for the uniforms worn by each of the above agencies at the time of the Siege except for the U.S. Army personnel.
- Congressional testimony given, by Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell, wherein he stated that the U.S. Army presence was in an advisory role only to advise and provide oversight and plan reviews of tactical operations to include the plans to end the siege.
- In memo titled “Department of Justice Request Waco-Texas”, documents a discussion had on April 14th 1993 between members of the FBI Waco Command, Attorney General Janet Reno, COL Boykin (USA), MG Halstab (USA), BG Shoomaker (USA). Army personnel assigned to Fort Bragg, Combat Applications Group, were sent to advise on the final assault on Waco. Congressional testimony and Boykin’s own account in later interviews corroborates this memo.
- The photo labeled USAWDTX 0093-0108 was taken within 72 hours after the end of the siege. Video stills show the man in question assisting in clearing debris while smoke can be seen emanating from the debris. In some images apparently from the same day, firefighting crews are still pouring water on the site. It is likely that the photos were taken within the first few hours after personell returned to the compound following the fire that ended the siege. This opinion is based upon the small flames seen in the photo while later footage from the same day shows that site with the small flames extinguished. (See still Film Capture 4 attached below.)
- Chipman was assigned to the Waco office several weeks after the initial siege.
- Army Personnel were assigned to Sniper Position 1 (SP-1) and accompanied HRT sniper team members based upon congressional testimony, eyewitness accounts and evidence gathered in the investigation.
- Other investigators found circumstantial evidence placing these members in the armored vehicles that entered the compound the day of the siege. Without definitive evidence it cannot be ascertained for certain nor is that line of inquiry relevant to the identity of person in USAWDTX 0093-0108. It is merely notable as this line of investigation is the source of much of the above information.
Conclusion:
It is impossible with the available evidence to draw a conclusion on the identities of personnel in photos labeled USAWDTX 0093-0108 along with those in photos USAWDTX 0093-01044; 0093-01046; 093-00846.
No single point of data is sufficient to eliminate Chipman. A preponderance of circumstantial evidence makes it is highly unlikely to be Chipman. There is a higher possibility that they were members of 1st SFOD-D assigned to Waco. The Army advisors would be the only personnel on site without clear uniforms, equipped as snipers and are known to have been on location. It would also corroborate Chipman’s testimony that they were not ATF or FBI, prior testimony from eyewitnesses, congressional reports and video footage from immediately after the siege.
Area for further research would be to cross reference verified photos of 1st SFOD-D members for matches to the photos in question.
Dollar's your Choid.
You can hold onto the debt until a later date or PM me instructions on how you want it distributed.
Also, feel free to contest the conclusion above if you feel I am in error.
Last edited:
Damn, I am impressed. Keep it on file, and we will bet again someday.
I vividly remember sitting in my fraternity house (insert jokes here) watching the standoff. This is back when most members would be very conservative, and that was definitely the case. It was really an awful event.
That, and the embarrassing questioning of Clarence Thomas a year or so before were two of the events that convinced me that I could never associate myself with Democrats.
I vividly remember sitting in my fraternity house (insert jokes here) watching the standoff. This is back when most members would be very conservative, and that was definitely the case. It was really an awful event.
That, and the embarrassing questioning of Clarence Thomas a year or so before were two of the events that convinced me that I could never associate myself with Democrats.
What is the connection between Waco, Dr Pepper and chipman? I get the Waco and chipman part but not the Dr Pepper link.
Invented in Waco ca. 1885 and ordered as "a Waco" until it was renamed Dr Pepper after the inventor gave the formula to the owner of the pharmacy where it was first sold.
Just watched Chipman answer Tom Cotton's question what is an assault weapon, the dude definably at some point in his life was smoking the ole meat pole.
We the people have not one single person on any committee. Guys we lost politically long ago. Good people don’t seek the job. This is what you end up with.
I wish someone would have had him clarify that
“So Mr ATF, you’re saying I won’t be able to have an assault rifle, but you’ll be keeping onto yours, even after retirement?”
Yeah, you can quit giving a shit what people want and live as a free man.
Not if people stand together. If all this other bullshit that was once illegal is now legal then I don’t suppose taking away what was legal and making it illegal is going to go over well. PS, for people that live in free states that don’t require FFL transfer then this would be impossible to enforce. All I got to do is say I sold it to my buddy and he can say he sold it to his Pappy who sold it to someone else. See where I’m going?
This! I think there is a plant of museum or both around there somewhere as well. Been a long time since I’ve been out that way.
We the people have not one single person on any committee. Guys we lost politically long ago. Good people don’t seek the job. This is what you end up with.
Agreed. So how do you fix it?
Here's a serious question then they should ask dipshits who claim an AR-15 is an assault weapon...shit, an M-4 for all that matters.
If somebody comes after a person with a tire iron, baseball bat, or something that can puncture(knife, screwdriver), bicycle, automobile, bulldozer - then when is THAT an assault weapon because it's used in an assault? Thus, anything could be an assault weapon which means either everything is (like all the things mentioned) or nothing is - simple as that. At least in my opinion - aka...a weapon sitting by itself, peacefully in one's car, home, hands and doesn't assault another human cannot be an assault weapon. Any object that can be used to kill somebody becomes an assault weapon when used to assault/kill somebody...be it a gun, knife, bamboo spear, hands/fists, etc - by definition I'd argue only when used in an actual assault does an object become a weapon that could be deemed an assault weapon.
By definition, COTUS & BOR says specifically "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" - obviously these people cannot read simple English that is the most clear of all the amendments...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...doesn't get much more clear IMO.
If somebody comes after a person with a tire iron, baseball bat, or something that can puncture(knife, screwdriver), bicycle, automobile, bulldozer - then when is THAT an assault weapon because it's used in an assault? Thus, anything could be an assault weapon which means either everything is (like all the things mentioned) or nothing is - simple as that. At least in my opinion - aka...a weapon sitting by itself, peacefully in one's car, home, hands and doesn't assault another human cannot be an assault weapon. Any object that can be used to kill somebody becomes an assault weapon when used to assault/kill somebody...be it a gun, knife, bamboo spear, hands/fists, etc - by definition I'd argue only when used in an actual assault does an object become a weapon that could be deemed an assault weapon.
By definition, COTUS & BOR says specifically "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" - obviously these people cannot read simple English that is the most clear of all the amendments...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...doesn't get much more clear IMO.
Semantics. In this case they do matter.
"Assault Weapon", vs "Assault Rifle", vs "Weapon Used to Commit Assault".
"Assault Weapon" has been attempted to be defined by congressional mandate or delegated to varying subordinate law enforcement departments. Several jurisdictions have overlapping definitions.
"Assault Rifle" as pmclaine stated before is a technical term with historic and concrete roots. If I recall correctly, the first time it was codified by the United States Military in a manual published in the 60's. The term dates back further and military identification and recognition books had a very specific definition which traces the roots to the STG44 and the terminology coined by the German military.
"Weapon used to commit assault", is just any weapon of opportunity.
My concern is when we pass a law outlawing or restricting [insert definition here], and leave it to an agency to fill in the definition at will. The practice is legally questionable and is of the type that often finds itself in front of the supreme court. This is the "Assault Weapon" definition in American laws. It is too broad to be practical and too open to interpretation to equitably adjudicate the rights of the citizens.
Doesn't that definition then say something like selective fire or fully automatic? If so, then this SHOULD be for any logical person, be a non-sequitur.
The earliest United States definition in the United States Military that I have read or found reference to was in FSTC-CW-07-03-70, "Small arms identification and operation guide--Eurasian communist countries", dated 1970.
This is both funny and frustrating as it is after the development of the M-16.
Numerous documents and intelligence report before then contain the reference to Assault Rifle, so there may be an earlier definition, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was not.
The specific quote:
"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges. Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters."
A copy of the manual can be found here: ->https://www.amazon.com/identification-operation-guide-Eurasian-communist-countries/dp/B0013C9YI8
The excerpted page:
For fun I found and attached the 1943 German Small Arms Identification Guide. Unfortunately, I can't find that they produced another guide after 1943. If anyone has a copy that contains the Sturmgewehr 44, please share.
Chapman reminds me of something, I’m just trying to think about what that is?
Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen!
SA marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt.
𝄆 Kam'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen,
Marschier'n im Geist in unser'n Reihen mit. 𝄇
Die Straße frei den braunen Bataillonen.
Die Straße frei dem Sturmabteilungsmann!
𝄆 Es schau'n aufs Hakenkreuz voll Hoffnung schon Millionen.
Der Tag für Freiheit und für Brot bricht an! 𝄇
Zum letzten Mal wird Sturmalarm geblasen!
Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit!
𝄆 Schon flattern Hitlerfahnen über allen Straßen.
Die Knechtschaft dauert nur noch kurze Zeit! 𝄇
Oh yeah… THAT’s what it is!
IDK but this guy definitely looks like what you would get if Lori Lightfoot and Choid had a baby !
You either don't understand the role of genetics or have no idea what I look like, because if I mated with a black woman, it sure as hell wouldn't look like a blond haired, blue eyed dude. And I have small, normal person ears.
Or are you just here to post your Ls just like the rest of you clowns who were sure that was Chimpan in that photo?
Huh, hadnt seen this elsewhere.....probably somewhere mentioned in the Pit though.....
bearingarms.com
Did Chipman Lose His Weapon While Serving As ATF Agent?
bearingarms.com
Trying to find a guide to include the STG would be like finding a unicorn. If I remember correctly from doing some research on that rifle years ago Hitler was not very fond of the STG and had the project shelved. Some of his Commanders disagreed and they continued to develop the rifle. Towards the end of the war they started handing them out to their troops. Some historians believed that had they not had to continue the development behind his back it would have changed the outcome of many battles.
“In secret, against Hitler's wishes, the gun was rolled out on a trial basis. When Hitler saw it's capabilities he changed his mind about it and coined the term "Assault Rifle". It could never be manufactured in the quantities needed and many soldiers still carried a bolt action rifle right up to the end of the war, but it where it was employed it made a huge difference. The soldiers loved it and saw it as a battle-winning weapon.
After the war captured copies were derided by the Americans for its poor workmanship. They still thought the M1 was far superior and American soldiers were still using the heavy, clumsy M1A in combat into Vietnam. But the Russians saw the value. Many variations came about as a result of the Stg 44, including the AK47. Some people try to claim it's not true, that the Stg had no influence on Soviet automatic design after the war but this is ridiculous on its face. Every assualt rifle today has its origins in the design of the Stg 44 and its ammunition.”
Since writing that, I couldn't let go of the fact, that the United States Military was extremely diligent in constantly updating their manuals for the field from 1944-1945. It had to be out there somewhere. So I went digging again. I think I've finally found the first mention in official publications.
The following excerpt comes from an article called "Machine Carbines Redesignated" from Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57 (April 1945). I will try to order a copy, but here is an excerpt of the text:
"The completely new name of Sturmgewehr (assault rifle) may be intended to erase any recollection of the mediocre quality of the earlier M. P. 43's, at least so far as new troops and the public are concerned. In any event, the introduction of the title Sturmgewehr, together with the accompanying blast of propaganda concerning the weapon, is but another example of German efforts to exploit the propaganda value inherent in weapons with impressive-sounding titles, such as Panzer, Tiger, Panther, and Flak 88. Since the Sturmgewehr is more easily mass-produced than a rifle or machine gun because of its many stampings and low-power ammunition, and because a machine carbine is needed by desperately fighting German infantry in their efforts to stem the assault of American troops, it is natural that the Germans should make every effort to capitalize on its propaganda potentialities. By dubbing the M. P. 43 the Sturmgewehr, Hitler may also succeed in deceiving many Germans into thinking that this weapon is one of the many decisive "secret weapons" which they have been promised, and which they are told will bring final German victory."
[.......]
"The present weapon incorporates a number of progressive changes made with the intention of giving the German infantry a suitable small arm for ranges beyond those of close-quarter fighting. First termed Maschinen Pistole (M. P. 43), it was successively designated M. P. 43/1, M. P. 44, and finally Sturmgewehr 44. Now one of the most common weapons issued to German troops, it is intended in a general way to serve the same purpose as the U.S. carbine, M1. As finally developed, the gun is a fully automatic, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed, shoulder weapon, firing from a closed bolt and a locked breech. A standard rifle grenade discharger can be fitted to the muzzle in front of the foresight."
Overall, the report is unflattering and as you described. The United States Military was comparing it to the U.S. carbine unfavorably. All the key components of what would go on to define the "Assault Rifle" are present. It notes that the gun is an air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed, closed bolt, shoulder fired weapon, capable of semi-automatic and fully automatic operation, firing an intermediate rifle round with an effective range of 450-650 yards.
Edit to add the link to the text version of the article:
Last edited:
Word salad coming out of Chipman’s mouth…he said lots of words that meant nothing….
"Why thank you senator I really do appreciate you asking me that question......"
Here is a link from a GOA e-mail that I received today. Basically an easy way to write your congressmen and tell them he should not be confirmed because he is an asshat.
Urge Your Senators to reject Chipman for ATF | GOA
We have already told you about David Chipman, the virulent anti-gunner who Joe Biden has nominated to run the ATF. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to have a vote on him this Thursday. And that’s why I need you to contact your Senators once again — even if they are not on that...
www.gunowners.org
Similar threads
