Ammo For Sale

« « About that giving up on the AWB thing | Home | Just saw an NRA ad on TeeVee » »

Mayors Against Guns: Let’s ban accurate rifles

Because two bit criminals are going to dump several thousand dollars on a TrackingPoint:

David Chipman, a spokesman for Mayors Against Illegal Guns which lobbies for an expansion of background checks for people buying guns, said the PGF “is not your grandfather’s hunting rifle used for sport and recreation this is a weapon designed to kill with precision.”

“This technology potentially enables any two bit criminal to operate with the skills of a highly trained sniper,” Chipman said.

16 Responses to “Mayors Against Guns: Let’s ban accurate rifles”

  1. Billll Says:

    Obvious case of Ceaușescu Syndrome. A corrupt politician fearful of armed peasants.

  2. Other Steve Says:

    Further evidence there will never be a goldilocks gun.

    It’s too small, concealable!
    It’s too large, destructive!
    Too cheap, scourge on the community!
    Too expensive, furthers the gun lobby!
    Too accurate, snipers everywhere!
    Too inaccurate, recklessly dangerous!
    Holds to many bullets, weapon of war!
    Holds too few, assassin’s tool!

    The only gun they will ever approve of are the ones their paid bodyguards have.

  3. The_Jack Says:

    Other Steve, it helps to think of the Antis as a bully doing the old “stop hitting yourself” routine.

  4. Bram Says:

    Sure. And I shouldn’t be able to buy a Lamborghini because I might be used as the get-away car after I knock-over a liquor store with my PGF.

  5. Weer'd Beard Says:

    Any hunter or sportsman who’s goal is not “to kill with precision” isn’t a very good hunter.

    Not that George Washington was crossing the Delaware to get to his duck blind.

  6. mikee Says:

    I have yet to see a reporter ask anyone decrying the sniper accurate, or bullet sprayer, or small concealable, or large overpowered, or [fill in blank] horrible firearm what kind of gun would satisfy fully the right to keep and bear arms, meet the need for adequate self defense as defined by the state, or make the blithering idiots of the anti-rights side stop whining.

    In comment threads where anti-gunners participate, it usually comes down to a single shot shotgun, at best. with questions about birdshot versus buck. And even then there is always, always, always strong argument against the right to self defense.

    The politician’s possession of an oral and an oral orifice makes them potential male prostitutes. i say we charge ’em and convict ’em on that basis.

  7. Kristophr Says:

    They are still throwing spaghetti at the wall, since evil black rifles didn’t stick.

  8. Sigivald Says:

    “is not your grandfather’s hunting rifle used for sport and recreation this is a weapon designed to kill with precision.”

    What do they think hunting is?

    Or, without the “killing” part, sport shooting?

    It’s fortunate that to a large extent, none of their crap works anymore, because it’s too easily and too widely countered.

  9. Paul B Says:

    We are the two bit criminals to which Mr Chipman was referring.

    Any one who has one gun for any reason beyond defending a politician is a criminal.

  10. Mr Evilwrench Says:

    I wonder if they’re presuming these two bit criminals will do a proper ROI on that 22 kilobux investment. Them’s some pretty fancy two bit criminals, tell ya what. Does knocking over a liquor store now require 1000m headshots?

  11. Windy Wilson Says:

    No, but when they unveil what they want to do to the unwashed masses, they hope that a 1,000 meter head shot is what it will take to stop them, which is why they are trying to forestall the capability among the untrustworthy masses now.
    As Joe Huffman says, “Don’t ever believe they don’t want to take all your guns from you.”

  12. Windy Wilson Says:

    Billl, “Ceaușescu Syndrome”
    Good one. Goes with Godwin’s Law, where anyone opposed to ever larger, more intrusive government is compared to Nazis. and Markley’s Law, where the desire to live undisturbed and to possess the tools necessary for such living is derided as wanting to possess the tools as a penis substitute.

  13. Kevin Baker Says:

    This is why, in his fantasy novel Unintended Consequences, John Ross had his characters assassinate a .gov official with an old Mosin Nagant with a cheap scope from about 300 yards.

    The fact that they could do that with what amounted to a tomato stake and some surplus ammo served as notice that it’s not the guns they should be afraid of.

    But, as I said, it’s a fantasy novel.

  14. anon Says:

    As I’m fond of pointing out: Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal. This means that the Constitution was written and ratified by men who were perfectly OK with the idea of privately owned WARSHIPS.

  15. Ted Says:

    Cops can only manage 3 in 10? Good lord, nobody tell those anti-gun folks that I can do better than that with the worn out Israeli Mauser I bought at Gander Mountain. And I’m definitely not “highly trained.”

  16. Alpheus Says:

    If I recall correctly, this is being sold to hunters because the military didn’t show any interest in it. Either the military thinks this is so destructive, it shouldn’t even be put in the hands of our soldiers…or they think it will likely be so unreliable, and so expensive, that the typical soldier should be content with their current equipment, and some training.

    But then, surely, the only reason criminals aren’t currently using rifles is because (1) they can’t do bayonet charges because bayonet lugs are banned in a handful of jurisdictions, and (2) they don’t have the right type of scope, and this is finally the scope they’ve been looking for!

    After all, how are you supposed to mug someone at bayonet-point with a concealed rifle, if you don’t have a super-expensive scope like this? You might have to resort to using a knife or a pistol instead!