Posted on 06/22/2016 4:37:11 AM PDT by rellimpank
We've all heard former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's admonition that "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Yet the public debate about guns in America takes Moynihan's warning to the next level: Each side not only has its own facts, it has its own language.
For instance, take the rush after the recent Orlando shootings to ban "assault" or "military-style" weapons like the AR-15 rifle. Gun control advocates immediately jumped to regulate sales of "automatic weapons" and "assault rifles" like the AR-15, which they deem too deadly for one individual to need. Scary stories about the AR-15, which Hillary Clinton called "weapons of war" that can fire hundreds of rounds per minute, began circulating, further clouding the story.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
Our government speaks Arabic on this, and on most topics.
These are not “assault rifles”, they are “mission rifles”.
An AR-15 rifle has a mission - to shoot that bear charging at you full tilt. Also to bring down that trophy deer. Or wild boar (which may also be charging at you).
“Gun free zones” are just shooting galleries, and the presence or absence of an AR-15 makes little difference if other sidearms are present. For those who have bad intentions, gun-free zones turn schools and other locations into shooting galleries.
Each side not only has its own facts, it has its own language …Not possible. Only one side is correct in terms of facts, and the other side is lying by using twisted language rather than real and honest language.
I suppose you can shoot the bear with it. It’d be better than nothing most likely, especially since the noise or the sting might also deter the bear, but it’s not really powerful enough to be expected to drop a bear.
I don't ever really expect to use it to defend my family and home from intruders. I don't expect a zombie apocalypse. I don't plan on taking up arms against a foreign or domestic power. I don't "need" it to go hunting (and it probably wouldn't be my first choice for that task either).
I do expect it to help ward off would-be tyrants and fascists. By being one of the millions of privately owned firearms it represents a very real threat. It is the literal teeth in the 2nd Amendment. All you lurkers out there that support "gun control" by the government - you, yes you, are exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written. You are the primary reason so many of us have so many firearms. Your ill-considered zeal for control and regulation is what drives so many firearms sales. These firearms are a very real reminder that you cannot and will not simply take away our freedoms, liberties, and rights.
We don’t need gun control. We need MUSLIM control!
ab abusu ad usum non valet consequential [A conclusion about the use of a thing from its abuse is invalid].
Very well said.
Anyone who has kept up with the scheming of the anti-gun movement will realize that for the last fifty three years they have wanted to ban the private possession of every type firearm that was used in a high profile crime.
1963-John Kennedy 5 shot bolt action army surplus rifles.
1966- Texas Tower shooter Whitman, bolt action hunting rifle and M1 carbine.
1968-MLK, pump hunting rifle.
1968-Bobby Kennedy -small revolver.
1972-George Wallace -Small revolver.
1973-Mark Essex, shooter. Ruger .44 Mag Deerslayer rifle.
1975 Gerald Ford almost shot- US Army .45 (Sold as Army surplus back around 1919)
And this is just from the 1960s and ‘70s.
All were followed by various groups claiming if THAT particular firearm had been banned the shooting would not have happened.
So it is today.
No offense, but those are not the AR-15’s ‘mission.’
The .223 cartridge is a bit on the anemic side for bears. They might be okay for deer.
But the .223 was designed for wounding men. It is also a pretty good target round.
Since liberals have entire cities and states that have ignored federal immigration law for years, conservatives have a basis for entire areas to ignore any new gun control laws.
In fact, conservatives have the stronger case, since immigration law is more distantly derived from the Constitution than the Second Amendment is for gun rights.
ab abusu ad usum non valet consequential
looks like the auto-correct tacked an ‘l’ onto your last word, in order to force it into proper vernacular
“But the .223 was designed for wounding men.”
I agree. It was for putting men out of action without excessive mortality.
The .357 Magnum, however, is designed to coat the surrounding countryside with someone’s innards.
Personally, I’m a fan of .44 Mag semi-jacketed hollow points, if I can’t get a rifle or shotgun.
The Democrat wet dream for the USA!
From Berlin on January 6th the German official radio broadcast—”The German military commander for Belgium and Northern France announced yesterday that the population would be given a last opportunity to surrender firearms without penalty up to January 20th and after that date anyone found in possession of arms would be executed.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.