Ammo For Sale

« « NSSF to sue Google | Home | An utter lack of self-awareness » »

Regarding the NYT’s recent anti-gun screeds

A couple of replies:

Botched

Neither ‘Capacity’ Nor ‘Power’ Distinguishes ‘Assault Weapons’ From Other Firearms

3 Responses to “Regarding the NYT’s recent anti-gun screeds”

  1. Ravenwood Says:

    There you go again..clouding the issue with facts!

  2. Ron W Says:

    An “assault weapon” or rifle would be one to be used in military assault tactics; one that was select-fire for full auto. The others that are owned by millions of American citizens are all semi-auto weapons. They are excellent for self defense, especially against multiple assailants where the standard capacity mags give an intended victim at least a fighting chance of survival. Unfortunately, a minuscule few have been used by deranged murderers in soft target attacks where they are almost certain of only unarmed victims who have been disarmed and kept that way by officialdom’s politicians. Yet their reactionary solution is to do MORE of the same by attacking the rights with further citizen disarmament measures while EXEMPTING THEMSELVES.

  3. Sigivald Says:

    The second one reminds me of why I don’t engage with people on Facebook.

    Someone was saying “these ARs are too powerful for civilians to own!”

    When I replied that they’re less powerful than Grandpa’s Hunting Rifle, they did not say “oh, sorry, I was wrong and they’re fine then”.

    They said something like “they’re too weak to be useful so they can be banned anyway”.

    (They’re both super-deadly murder machines AND not useful for defense or sport because they’re so weak!)

    The goal is pre-decided and emotional.

    Actual data is molded to fit or disregarded if it’s contrary.