Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I just heard Obama tell the world, and a person asking a question about AK47s on tonight's "debate", that he wanted to "ban assault rifles".
For Obama and his friends, an assault rifle is a semi-automatic version of its military counterpart. Why are they more dangerous than any other semi-auto rifle? Because they look more deadly? For that matter, why are they any more deadly than a well aimed bolt? Cooper argues, convincingly, that they aren't.
I have both, not that I'm allowed to shoot people. And for those of you who think that a heavily armed society is bound to be more violent, well, have a look at Switzerland.
England, where you're put in gaol for owning a pocketknife, is far more violent. Some would say more interesting too, but that's another story.
More guns, please.
LSP
3 comments:
You nailed it early on. Assault Weapon is liberal speak for an especially scary-looking gun.
You are also correct about which is a more effective weapon.
If the spam hits the fan and, God forbid, I had to shoot people looking to attack my property and kill my family, I'm using the 30-06 or 308 with the scope, not an AR-15 or Mini 14, no matter how much fun they are to plink with.
I'll chime in --a couple years late-- with supporting evidence: The police in London took away my mace! (I had to scan my purse to get in a building and they saw it in there.)
I tried to explain my vulnerable living situation and asked (using my very best manners) if I could please have it back, but they said NO and looked at me as if I were a defiant, threatening, horrifying menace to society.
I do believe I was more confused in that moment than I'd ever been up to that point in my life.
Me?? I was the threatening one????
I don't personally own any guns, but I can say very honestly that I like living in a state where a lot of people do and know how to use them properly.
The English are so lost on this...
Happy Easter!
Post a Comment