Ammo For Sale

« « The new ban on weapons that look like assault weapons | Home | Funnies » »

But their only purpose is to kill as many people as possible

That’s what the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership tells us about assault weapons. So, why do the police want them?

8 Responses to “But their only purpose is to kill as many people as possible”

  1. Ron W Says:

    I do think our public SERVANTS, our hired guns should have what they need to defend themselves against multiple attackers, assailants, etc. when carrying out their duty to protect and serve. That means guns with they “purpose to kill as many as possible” or maybe it would be better to say guns with the purpose to kill as many as one needs for self-defense.

    That being said, we as the employers and delegaters of power to our hired guns certainly should have RIGHT to possess and carry the same means of self-defense that we delegate to our employees!!

    Since our government is allowing our antion to be invaded to add to our own domestic criminal element and allowing the deployment of foreign troops in our country, that “necessity” is all the more needed.

  2. Jaye Random Says:

    The first quote in the article is from Scott Knight, who has received an award from gun-control lobbying group Citizens For a Safer Minnesota.” One wonders how this issue came to crime beat writer Kevin Johnson’s attention. Was the story assigned to him by his editor?
    Did Scott Knight or someone else from a gun-control advocacy group call up USA TODAY and pitch this story to them?
    BTW, if you didn’t see the front page of USA TODAY yesterday, this article was above the fold with huge type screaming POLICE NEEDING HEAVIER WEAPONS: Chiefs cite spread of assault rifles”. Yes, that’s right, “assault rifles”. Apparently the National Firearms Act of 1934 got repealed while we weren’t looking.
    Image of the front page here:

  3. Ron W Says:

    If the criminals are now using true “assault” (full-auto) rifles that have been illegal since 1934, then why is it that certain reactionary, tyrannical politicians want to deny us our RIGHT to high capacity semi-auto rifels and psitols that are wonderful for most any self-defense situation??

  4. straightarrow Says:

    Horseshit! They have always demanded and received arms not available to the public. This is just more of the same, they are just playing the “we could be victims” card.

    I was going to be a cop at one time, but I couldn’t pass the physical to be policewoman as I had testicles, which also disqualified me from being a policeman.

  5. Ron W Says:

    Right straightarrow,

    We have militarized police on our streets complete with helmets, bulletproof vests and full-auto, machine guns (real assault weapons) not to mention the SWAT teams they use for domestic criminals. While at the same time our borders are left open for illegal alien gangs and terrorists because Bush doesn’t want to “militarize” the border.

  6. markm Says:

    “So, why do the police want them?”
    Most of the police assault rifles are AR-15s. The largest game I know of that is commonly hunted with that undersized cartridge is coyotes, which you’ll notice are considerably smaller than men, but fair-sized among dogs. So, my conclusion is that they’re arming up to kill as many puppies as possible.

  7. Robb Allen Says:

    Cops need the correct caliber for the job. A properly aimed .223 is not rendered useless simply because it’s shot towards someone with a .50BMG. My mother’s .38 special is lethal not because of it’s a high power round, but because my mother could shoot the ass off a gnat at 50 yards.

    I say, whatever police are allowed to carry should be limited to what the populace is allowed to carry. Otherwise you open yourself up for a police state.

  8. Ron W Says:

    “I say, whatever police are allowed to carry should be limited to what the populace is allowed to carry. Otherwise you open yourself up for a police state.”

    Well-said, Rob Allen. Employees should not have more rights, privileges or delegated powers than their employers and they should be subject to the same laws, i.e., “the equal protection of the laws” (14th Amendment)

    How many politicians would push gun control and citizen diarmament if their security detail was subject to the same restrictions they want to impose in the rest of us??

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges