To everyone who whines about those who demand the correct terminology be used in debate, consider the following.
Let's say the NRA starts a campaign to abolish the 1934 NFA, which covers full-auto machine guns. The NRA then films a live demo for media consumption showing someone firing a semi-auto rifle and claiming these are the types of guns covered by the 1934 NFA.
Would you call them out on their lie?
How would that be different than the antis pushing a ban on "assault weapons" while showing video of full-auto machine guns and claiming these are the types of guns their pending legislation will cover?
I'm getting tired of shoveling piles of anti crap and throwing it back at them, but they keep on buying me a bigger and lighter shovel.
4 comments:
I just keep thinking of how funny it would be if they passed a ban on clips that hold more than 10 rounds, but neglected to ban magazines.
I'll take it one step further...
If they ban magazines which can hold more than 10 rounds, but don't specify that it be contingent on holding more than 10 rounds DESIGNED FOR THAT MAGAZINE, then we have the perfect SCOTUS case in the making.
I just grabbed a 10 round mag for my AK and stuffed 30 rounds of .22LR into it before I got bored.
Think about it.
I've heard that during the last ban a 10 round Beretta 96 magazine could be used to hold 15 rounds of 9mm in a Beretta 92 with no problems.
Also, a 10 round magazine for .458 SOCOM is a 30 round .223 magazine.
They're not trying to make sense; they are trying to abuse us. If your 10-round SOCOM mag lands you in prison because a prosecutor says that it’s an illegal 30-round .223 mag, the antis will laugh at you. The more irrational and abusive a gun law is to us; the more the antis like it.
Eventually, they mean to round us up and put us into re-education camps where they can kill us. Taking our guns is the "first step". The "second step" will be whatever they want it to be.
They get nothing. Not a thing. And I want my Second Amendment rights back. All of them.
Post a Comment