The new horizon of gun control, Part 3. “Military style weapons”

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wehrwolfen, Dec 24, 2012.

  1. Wehrwolfen
    Offline

    Wehrwolfen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,752
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +339
    The new horizon of gun control, Part 3. “Military style weapons”​




    by Jazz Shaw
    December 20, 2012

    In the first two entries of this four part series –
    A Violent Society and The Black Hole of Mental Health – we examined the first pair of the three part “reasonable discussion” currently being offered by those seeking new and immediate gun control laws. They involve the nuanced, oh so helpful sounding approach to curtailing mass shootings such as we witnessed last week in Newtown, Connecticut. The third leg of this particular stool will be the heaviest lift for those still concerned with their civil liberties, so I advise you to fasten your seat-belts before we proceed. Some truths can be hard to speak during such dark times, but their veracity is not diminished one bit. Today we will discuss the argument being put forth by these concerned citizens wherein they assure us that they love the Second Amendment… they don’t want to deter your right to go hunting… they simply don’t see why you should legally be entitled to “Military Style Weapons.”

    But first, another brief update on the evolving media circus surrounding this rapidly building tsunami. If you don’t think that you’ll be facing the sympathy card on this front, do not be deceived. Just look who the Democrats are lining up to make their case.

    During an emotional news conference announcing their new focus on gun control, House Democrats put forth several members personally affected by gun violence, including Rep. Ron Barber (D-Ariz.), who took a seat in Congress after being shot and wounded alongside former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) in Jan. 2011; Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), whose husband was killed and son severely wounded in the December 1993 shooting on a Long Island Railroad commuter train; Rep. James Langevin (D-R.I.), who has had to use a wheelchair since age 16 after being wounded in an accidental shooting; and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), whose 29-year old son was killed in a 2009 shooting.​

    Read more:
    The new horizon of gun control, Part 3. “Military style weapons” « Hot Air

    Definitely read to complete article. The restriction on length of posting requires that I notify those of you that are interested.
     
  2. Wehrwolfen
    Offline

    Wehrwolfen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,752
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +339
  3. Glensather
    Offline

    Glensather Gothic Vampires

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2012
    Messages:
    945
    Thanks Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    World 1-1
    Ratings:
    +98
    Define "Military Style Weapons".
    The article didn't.
    Does it mean assault rifles? Then there's an argument there. You don't NEED an assault rifle.
    Does it mean submachine guns? When was the last time you needed those?
    Nor should you ever need an extended magazine for anything. If you need extra bullets, then you're doing it wrong.

    Let's say that the American people do rise up and rebel against the government, and we're limited to semi-automatics, bolt actions, and the like. All this means is that you have to be more accurate. Quit wasting ammo and make every shot count.

    You think the shootings recently were bad? Imagine if these people took the extra time to AIM.
     

Share This Page