Ammo For Sale

« « Nothing better to do | Home | Glockity » »

Unclear on the concept

Via google alerts, comes this:

I believe in the second amendment. I believe Americans have the right to bear arms.

Good. But:

I know I risk incurring the wrath of my fellow Conservatives on this one, but I don’t believe American citizens need assault weapons.

Then, no, you don’t believe in the second amendment and that Americans have the right to bear arms.

Actually, he comes full circle on the issue. But, and here’s the rub, I’d bet he doesn’t know what an assault weapon is. Why would he since it’s been misrepresented in the media so much? Anyway, here’s an assault weapons primer.

9 Responses to “Unclear on the concept”

  1. Justthisguy Says:

    That fellow having a blogspot blog, as do I, so that I can’t comment on his or post on mine with my ancient system (Google is Evil); would somebody please point out to that fellow that it’s perfectly legal to own a machine gun in the USA if one has lots of money and is willing to suffer the virtual and figurative, maybe actual soon, anal probulation of the fedgov?

    Unless one lives in Kansas as he appears to do. In that case, one would be SOL. As is The Donovan, but he doesn’t seem to mind too much.

  2. Laughingdog Says:

    I run into the same type at work. So many of my co-workers grew up with guns, but they’re the stereotypical “I’m a hunter, and they aren’t after my guns” type.

    They’re nothing but hypocrites. They’re totally willing to sell out other gun owners because they don’t own “that type of gun”. The word “need” seems to always come up when you talk to them. Somehow, they can’t get their tiny brains to grasp that I “need” my Bushmaster about as much as they need their jacked up SUVs and 4x4s.

  3. Robb Allen Says:

    JustThisGuy, I’m all over it.

  4. Rustmeister Says:

    would somebody please point out to that fellow that its perfectly legal to own a machine gun in the USA

    I was in the middle of doing just that when my internet crapped out on me. I knew there’d be plenty of others around to help that guy out. =)

  5. DirtCrashr Says:

    I wonder if that “Mark” is the same willfully and obstinately obtuse “Markadelphia” who visits with a large vocabulary of unknown origin and spews incoherence at Kevin’s blog — because his behavior and follow-up is nearly identical, and his insistence on false or twisted definitions is very similar…

  6. Phelps Says:

    I guess it is the same logic that says that freedom of the press guarantees your right to print a newspaper but not to have a blog.

  7. Unix-Jedi Says:


    Looks to be a coincidence.

    I see several differences in the style…. and I ought to know, having spent way too much time trying to deal with Markadelphia….

  8. DirtCrashr Says:

    Thanks Unix-Jedi — but I guess it’s no coincidence that they are substantially similar in dyslexic myopia and transubstantiating para-logic! 🙂

  9. Ron W Says:

    “Americans don’t NEED “assault weapons”? So what does that mean? Does it mean that the government decides what we NEED and then restrict, deny or take it way if they think we don’t NEED it??

    And which “assault weapons”?; those used to commit assault? knives, bats, rocks, or even fists?? Oh, it’s only guns you say. Real full-auto “assault weapons” like government agents use for assault tactics, protect themselves and government officials…or the semi-auto weapons they want to restrict, deny or take away from us?? And how is it they intend to enforce such…oh, by guns, of course…full-auto “assault” weapons!!

    Oh yeah! There you have it, guns for me, but not for thee…the evil, despicable method of tyrants down through history.