What’s wrong with kids today?
From some college paper I’ve never heard of:
There likely isn’t a scarier indication of the direction of gun laws than President Bush’s failure last fall to renew the Assault Weapons Ban — a ban won at great personal expense to many legislators. To the pragmatist, it would seem legal assault weapons are the last thing government should be providing to a country plagued by gun violence.
Err, Congress passes laws there, sparky. And the government provides weapons? Where do I get one? Man, they teach these reporters fact checking early!
February 8th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Oh, Oh, if you find out where they are handing out the free assault weapons, tell me.
Though I hope that the quality is better than those 5 lb. blocks of cheese they give away.
February 8th, 2006 at 9:31 am
CMP! Woohoo!
February 8th, 2006 at 9:35 am
YEah, but the CMP is no longer funded and it doesn’t give them away.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:39 am
More replies to anti-gunners
I submitted the following comment in regard to this editorial found in the University of Wisconson college paper. H/T to Sayuncle. Let’s see if they actually post it.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:43 am
I can’t believe they’re still beating this horse. The “ban” has been dead, what, nearly a year and a half? But in the first place, does this genius even know that this “ban” banned exactly ZERO existing guns?
February 8th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
If you want the government to issue you an assault rifle (not “assault weapon”), just see a military recruiter. Of course, you’ll have to turn it back in sooner or later, and I’d think that for anyone sane, the other aspects of the deal (both good and bad) are rather more important than having your hands on a select-fire poodle-shooter.
February 8th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
While the anti-gun lunatics like to spew horror stories about people killed with guns, they cautiously avoid the facts. Why? Because the facts clearly show that honest citizens, when armed, endure fewer violent assaults. Criminals seek out unarmed victims, so if you disarm yourself, you are likely to get what you deserve. Just ask anti-gun Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. When her life was threatened by criminals, her response was to purchase a pistol. Hypocritical? You bet.
http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=d41b8b28-ebd3-4c1a-90a0-e803701539fa
February 8th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Plus CMP doesn’t have any “assault weapons” anyway.
They only seem to have M-1 Garands and 1903 and 1917 rifles (oh, okay, and some .22 training rifles) currently, none of which ever counted as an “assault weapon”, even under the AWB’s expansive language; I’m not sure the M-1 even counts under California’s law, but I don’t pay attention to the latter, since I do not live in CA, and never intend to.