“An AK-47 is a Russian-made weapon that is made for war. An AR-15, which is an answer to the AK-47.."
An assault weapon is not useful for hunting game. It isn’t easily available, like a handgun, for self-defense. It is designed for one purpose: war. These are weapons for domestic, homegrown terrorism.If you're a blithering moron who has no idea what you're talking about, sure, then both of the above statements are true. That seems to fit all three of the above listed. Anyone w/ their head not firmly planted inside their rectum either knows or can easily learn that the 'AR-15' is THE most popular sporting firearm out there and is VERY good for hunting and self-defense in the home.
So, as usual, to push for gun control, one has to use lies, ignorance and fear.
UPDATE: It should be noted that a month after this article was published that the Detroit Police Chief in question was suspended for misconduct and retired for having an improper relationship w/ a subordinate (ironically the same reason his predecessor was fired). The subordinate, again note another police officer, made insinuations of suicide during the affair and was made to surrender her service weapon.
These are the people that gun control advocates like Ladd Everitt want to give a monopoly of force.
4 comments:
Yep, spread the FUD.
"It isn’t easily available"
LOL
Everyone and their mother seems to make ARs these days.
Teh stoopid it BURNS....
Not to defend Jesse, but rather to explain his comment. What I think he meant, from context, is that, being rifles, "assault weapons" aren't "easily available" -in an emergency-; as in not as handy to grab from your bedside table, or even carry on your hip, for self-defense, as is a handgun.
Which for many cases of self-defense, is true.
He's trying to split the handgun self-defense guys from the "assault weapon" guys, the same way they try to split the duck and deer hunters from the "assault weapon" guys.
They are playing on the false claim that Heller only actually protected handguns (and then, in their view, probably only in the home).
By doing that they can claim to be "following the SC ruling" but still justify an assault weapon ban via the "some infringements are likely Constitutional" dicta.
Post a Comment