Assault weapon? We’re not even allowed by law to own the modern day equivalent of a musket! That would be an M-16 or M-4 – they’re banned! We can only have semiauto imitations of those, with no bayonet lugs where I’m at, and there’s not even any argument against bayonet lugs – bayonets were around long before the Second Amendment. These ban happy lunatics need to take a hike!
Wolfwood nailed the first sloppy error in that article; his citation of Wisconsin as no-carry is the other, as it’s been shall-issue since November.
I also don’t care for his unilateral certainty of “the solution” he presents. Involuntary commitment laws have their own dangers should they be strengthened too far; how many times have you seen mere political dissent labelled as “derangement”?
I am no conspiracy guy either. I believe the best report we have is the count of spent shell casings from teh .223 was 76-79ish. But the coroner’s report will most likely be a long time coming. The issue will be decided before then.
I want to laugh whenever I read people on Facebook talking breathlessly about how certain cosmetic features on “Assault weapons” increase their lethality (pistol grips, folding stocks, bayonet lugs); Magazine capacity maybe, but someone with enough skill could quickly re-load an SKS with a pouch full of stripper clips…and a levergun in .30-30 hits somewhat harder than a .223