This one is pretty lame:

How many rounds of ammunition are needed in a single clip to hunt or target shoot?

Federal law now allows up to 10. After that, the marksman or hunter has to manually replace an ammo clip to load 10 more. It takes about three seconds, less with practice.

In 32 days, the 10-year-old federal assault weapon ban expires, allowing hunters and marksmen to save that extra three seconds by having magazines that can hold 15, 20 even 70 rounds of ammunition for a continuous spray of bullets to pulverize a target or decimate large game.

What does hunting have to do with it?

These large-clip, rapid-firing assault weapons certainly can be used for target practice and hunting. But their real value is in man-to-man combat, exchanging rounds in a firefight. Their prevalence in Iraq is what makes things so deadly for U.S. troops. If Iraq had an assault weapon ban, the U.S. casualty count would be much, much lower.

Again, trying to imply the assault weapons ban applies to military machine guns, it doesn’t. And the comparison to Iraq is intellectually dishonest on so many levels. Do they really think a ban would curb the insurgency? That may be the dumbest thing I’ve read today.

Without action by our congressmen, the U.S., too, will be without an assault weapon ban. The current ban isn’t fool-proof. Some assault weapons manufactured before the ban still are allowed. Legal, semi-automatic weapons can be illegally modified to operate in violation of the law.

The current ban isn’t a ban on any gun. It’s a ban on what cosmetic features guns can have. And, for the record, ALL assault weapons manufactured before the ban still are legal to own.

But it clearly has kept thousands of more dangerous weapons off the streets. Scientific polls of registered voters invariably show more than 70 percent favor extending the ban.

And how are those two statements related? The ban has kept the weapons out of the hands of law abiding collectors. Criminals, who by definition disobey laws, are not going to obey this one (like you said in the above paragraph). Additionally, the studies you allude aren’t credible and there are studies that show the opposite.

And their conclusion:

You know what is crazier? Letting this common-sense ban fall victim to a relative handful of gun supporters who earnestly believe the ban somehow weakens our important and necessary 2nd Amendment.

It doesn’t.

So, if I understand this right, you’re telling me that infringing on my second amendment rights doesn’t, you know, infringe on my second amendment rights? Moron.

Posted in uncategorized on August 12th, 2004 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |