Background checks would not have prevented (names of scumbags redacted-ed.) from obtaining guns.But he wants more gun control anyway because it 'might' do something.
...none would likely have prevented any of the mass casualty shootings above.
I flogged that dead horse after (scumbag names redacted-ed.)......I thought I'd flog a different one this time.
Let's take a look at some of his genius ideas.
1. limit caliber size and powder amounts
Yeah, ok. He's heard the word 'caliber' and 'high velocity' in the same sentence before but doesn't know that .22lr and a scary 'assault weapon' caliber of .223 are only 3 thousandths of an inch different.
2. limit magazine size
Oh, another vague talking point. To what shall it be limited to? Why that particular number? Because some numbers are scarier than others.
3. restrict the amount of ammo that can be purchased
Why? Oh right, because he heard the scary number of 6,000 in relation to CO. Same for:
4. and the amount of accumulative totals of ammo one can own.
Again, this is the 'booga booga' factor most gun control advocates rely on. He'ld crap himself if he knew that the amount I own is more than the above number and pales in comparison to dedicated shooters and enthusiasts.
5. require gun owners obtain liability insurance before purchasing a weapon.
Oh yeah because that would NEVER be abused and would NEVER be a way to keep the non-wealthy and connected from obtaining firearms.
These are the magical unicorn farts that 'might' do something, but we all know they wouldn't when enacted in real life.
3 comments:
Actually, .22LR(.222)and .223 are one thousandth of an inch different, and many .22LR are high velocity.
lets take a look at my handy reloading manual. . . .
.22 hornet
.223 Winchester Super Short Magnum
.22-250 Remington
5.56×45mm NATO
5.45×39mm
with the exception of the first one all have greater than 1000 foot pounds of force. some exceed 2000 foot pounds.
i guess he also wants to limit "powder amounts" which pretty much means nothing in the realm of modern powders. people would just switch to powders that had higher energy densities.
i think what he really wants to say is he wants to limit the maximum energy of a projectile, but do so in the most impractical and ineffective way possible.
i don't know what advantage there is to stating it in this way, maybe he is trying not to piss off the hunters? (hunting is the only legitimate use of firearms donchaknow, except it's inhumane and should be banned)
honestly i don't see how this can work, even in the mythical realm of fairy gun control land. anything that would be capable of taking out a deer humanely would work in spades for people, and defeat standard body armor to boot.
anyone else with a theory?
"These are the magical unicorn farts that 'might' do something, but we all know they wouldn't when enacted in real life."
I disagree.
It will accomplish EXACTLY what those who want to pass Malum Prohibitum laws always want to accomplish...expanding the 'crimnal' base* in order to reduce the number of 'free citizens' able to bear arms, because there will be those for whom such laws will be 'crossing their line', who will refuse to comply on principle alone.
*Which, aside from infringing on everyone's freedom, is the only real effect of such laws...increasing 'crime' by suddenly making regular folks who have done nothing wrong into criminals. New crimes = new criminals = increased crime = calls for more laws, ad nauseum.
Post a Comment