Selective apologetics

Via Armsed and the Law Safe (oops), we discover an apology letter for the "Ban All Guns" nonsense the other day. Both he, Pistolero, Kevin Baker , and others have taken her to task either in the comments and/or their blogs but their is one area they missed on in their replies to her.

The sh*tstorm that hit Zumbo wasn't mostly about the guns not being good for hunting, that's just a non-thought out opinion, it was that he called them terrorist weapons and that they should be banned. My reply:

Your analysis of the Zumbo affair is not entirely complete. Through your own link he did much more than state that he felt "Assault Weapons" weren't good for hunting. That is merely and uneducated opinion. What really got the sh*tstorm to hit was his statement that they were 'terrorist rifles' and that they should be banned from outdoor activities.

That showed not only a level of ignorance and elitism from someone who was a 'lifelong hunter' but also gave ammunition to all the anti-gun groups. Within a few weeks, the Brady Campaign and others were repeating his words as the voice of hunters in the US.

Calling a firearm an "assault weapon" in no way makes it more or less accurate. There are many different configurations of the many models out there, hunting, home defense, target shooting, etc. What it boils down to is that an 'assault weapon' is merely a semi-auto firearm that has cosmetic features similar to some military firearms. They function no different than any other semi-auto.

The Rev. spoke out in ignorance and hostility and was responded to in kind. Many gun owners are tired of being called terrorists and criminals because they choose to be gun owners.

Update: Seems that being polite and presenting counter information isn't as effective as she claims.

That's really all I have to say on the subject. I'm not going to answer any more comments on it. Sorry, I'm just out of time and interest.

Translation: Facts don't matter so please don't present them if they don't fit my worldview.