The political battle lines have formed as a result of the San Bernardino jihadi terrorist shootings last week that killed 14 and wounded 21.
The Democrats are desperate to misdirect the conversation away from this latest terrorism embarrassment to that of more gun control. Seemingly taking its cue from the White House, the New York Times published a rare front page editorial yesterday decrying the ability of Americans to buy and own rifles. And like the typical liberal (mis)use of language ... the term it blared was "assault rifles" ... which pretty much covers the gambit of what you would be able to purchase if you went into a gun store today.
Most uninformed Americans think this means fully-automatic military-style weapons designed to kill people. This is not the case. Yes, the current marketing trend for rifles means that what are sold are, in fact, more machismo-looking than in olden days, but they are not true fully-automatic military weapons. In fact the rifles used in this terrorist attack were purchased legally in California ... a state with the strictest gun laws in the United States.
On the other hand, the Republicans are focusing on rampant Muslim immigration and their increasing terrorism ... pointing out that the California female shooter, Tashleen Malik, is a Muslim and had been recently fully vetted as a new immigrant. This suggests that the vetting process so lauded by Obummer, is a sham ... and that, for safety's sake, a pause needs to be taken in this Muslim immigration surge. It seems that the Republicans also recognize that "guns don't kill people all by themselves."
And as to the selling of guns to people on the "no fly" list. This again is a Democrat red herring. The no-fly list is not constructed by due process ... 72 employees of the Department of Homeland Security are on this list. This means that the government could keep people from buying guns just by putting their names on this list ... and, in an unfortunate era when our government is not to be trusted, this is why this bill was voted down by the Republicans.
President Obummer is going on national television tonight to tell us what the government is doing to protect us from the likes of the San Bernardino shooters. If his talk is as full of half-truths as was his assurances last year that we were going to "degrade and destroy" ISIS, I think I will switch channels to a football game.
11 comments:
Calling the President "Obummer" lends no credence to your argument. It is downright silly to argue against better ammunition and gun control. If you didn't like that bill, what reasonable controls would you agree with? Yeah, I thought so.
" the term it blared was "assault rifles" ... which pretty much covers the gambit of what you would be able to purchase if you went into a gun store today."
This is total Bullshit. Most guns in a gun store are hunting rifles and shotguns, not semiautomatic (a shot as fast as you can pull a trigger) with a 50 round banana clip of armor piercing slugs so you can kill 20 people in 10 seconds. This is what most reasonable people want to keep off the streets.
California has the controls Obummer wants ... and what good did it do?
Most non-shotgun hunters and target shooters these days use what you and the NYT calls "assault rifles" ... which are limited to 10 round clips. The term "assault rifle" is a pajorative cooked up by the anti-gun lobby and Barbara Boxer to sway public opinion. It certainly worked with you.
Google "hunting rifles" and visit some sites. Most old style rifles are being remaindered ... while the "assault rifles" are featured.
Also, for a little enlightenment see: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-gun-debate-in-two-charts.php
"What does it matter?" There are 3,000,000 high-capacity semi-automatic weapons estimated to held by Americans. Estimated because the manufacturers are vague and the consumers aren't saying. And with the number of household that have ANY guns dropping to about 39% while the number of guns (again estimated) approaches 310 million, that's a lot of guns for each of those that cherish them. So people that have lots of guns are buying more guns.
As to your enlightenment, can we extrapolate that if everyone had a gun, there would be no gun crime?
Here's a thought. Instead of a mutual fund that divests from nasties, create a fear-shock-and-awe fund that focuses entirely on guns, ammo, weapons, and, what-the-hell, oil for a bit of lubricant. S&W was up 7% today...
Smith and Wesson ... don't they make cough drops and cooking oil?
No, go to a store: into Dicks Bass Pro Shops or Walmart. They mostly carry hunting weapons. On line Gun sites should be shut down. Also shooting ranges that let anyone wearing burkas practice shooting assault rifles.
Semiautomatic= 1 kill per trigger squeeze until you need to re-load. Great for deer hunting.
Post a Comment