Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Fear tactics

July 9, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

Now that Republicans have declared war on the middle class and brazenly thrown their support to the top 3 percent, they need something to convince the people who actually work for a living to vote for them. It turns out their most effective weapon is weapons.

Fear! What would conservative Republicans do if they could not inflict fear into the hearts of their followers? The National Rifle Association spends billions lobbying and promoting guns and convincing gullible people that Democrats are going to confiscate their guns. I do not know one politician who wants to restrict hunting or reasonable home safety fire arms. However I do know a few courageous political leaders who say we must get assault weapons off the streets and not allow their sale at gun shows. The truly courageous even go so far as to proclaim that concealed weapons should not be allowed on college campuses and in bars.

U.S. gun manufacturers, with the support of their NRA allies, are the biggest supplier of weapons to terrorists and drug cartels throughout the world. These are the same weapons killing and maiming our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the enforcement professionals attempting to control the drug traffickers. Aiding and abetting the enemy is an act of treason. This illegal practice will continue as long as our Congress does not have the guts to stand up to the NRA.

And while all of us get diverted by these fear tactics, the conservatives continue to destroy the middle class and pander to the rich.

Comments

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 1 month ago

The Stench Of Truth: 47% of Congress members are millionaires--a status shared by only 1% of Americans. I guess they're pandering to themselves. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/47-of-congress-members-millionaires-a-status-shared-by-only-1-of-americans/

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I can 'assault' you just as easily with my Remington 870, or my Remington 700, as I can with my AR-10. And they're called tactical weapons (assault weapon is taboo now). Leave my guns alone...I may need them when the zombie apocalypse comes or to water the Tree of Liberty.

1

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

Guns don't kill people -- but they help.

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 1 month ago

Guns don't kill people--governments do.

3

2 years, 1 month ago

"I do not know one politician who wants to restrict hunting or reasonable home safety fire arms."

Well then you haven't been paying attention. Did you miss the SCOTUS ruling on DC's law that banned guns for home protection? Even after the ruling politicians still try to find ways to keep people from legally possessing guns for home protection.

"U.S. gun manufacturers, with the support of their NRA allies, are the biggest supplier of weapons to terrorists and drug cartels throughout the world."

Wow talk about fear mongering. I 'd like to see some proof to back up your statement.

4

jaywalker 2 years, 1 month ago

As brilliant as the LTE author. Guns = Fear. That's right up there in credence w/ Obama = Stalin, Black President = Racism, Health Care mandate = Socialism, Planned Parenthood = Murder.

1

jaywalker 2 years, 1 month ago

Oh so topical. Last time I heard that nonsensical line about "Republicans declaring war on the middle class" had to be at least a year ago. To back that non sequitur you propose their most effective weapon is weapons? And to bolster THAT claim you switch to "Fear!" of losing weapons and the false claim that the NRA is to blame for guns killing our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Do better, E. Kent. The argument doesn't follow the premises and the conclusion is a joke. Even a modicum of research would have shown Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban have primarily been armed by Iran, with the weapons coming from Austria, Russia, and China.

0

Gotalife 2 years, 1 month ago

We aren't living in the Old Wild West as you might want to think. I would like to believe that most people have more intelligence than to think they need a sidearm for everyday protection. I think the greater danger comes from the people who believe this and keep crying about their freedoms. Ridiculous!!!

0

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

So you think its ok for an 18 year old who doesn't have any criminal record to walk into an arizona gun store and buy fifty or a thousands of automatic weapons? How many do you need to defend yourself? That same 18 year old can turn around and sell those weapons to whomever and turn right around and do it again and again. All because the few"moronic political leaders" can't out vote the the rest of the"moronic political leaders" whom are in the pockets of the NRA. Not hard to figure out who the morons are in this equation. Why not let this 18 year old buy one automatic weapon, register it and make it against the law for him to sell it to the Mexican crime groups. Or, at least make it illegal for him to sell the 50 assault weapons to the Mexican drug lords and other criminals. Seems there is a middle ground in there somewhere that you nor the "policical morons" want to go anywhere near. So, the legal guns from America will continue arm the Mexican cartels as well as any other criminals. Great program.

2

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

Ok, then your position is that you support the Mexican drug cartels and their use of Legal US weapons to commit their crimes. Your entitled to that.

"Is there a middle ground on rape? Murder? Theft? What you want to do is commit a crime by taking away someone's freedom of contract and property rights. You are advocating a criminal act."

Is there a middle ground on the rape and murder these legal weapons are involved in? Your putting words in my mouth. I never said you shouldn't be able to defend yourself. How many guns can you hold and shoot at one time. I think not 50 or hundreds. You can even own several weapons but when your selling them to people who commit rape, murder, and theft, you are beating your own argument with your argument.

0

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

Well, didn't take you long to crumble into complete BS. To be expected when your position defies all reason.

Why don't you try that position on the republican congress? Can't imagine why Holder never thought of that. Or for that matter Congress didn't ever think of that.

Your clearly a visionary.

0

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

Like I said, didn't take long for you to crumble into complete BS.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 1 month ago

No, he handed you your backside.

0

werekoala 2 years, 1 month ago

You do realize that you are tacitly endorsing the conduct of the Obama Administration in the Fast And Furious scandal, right?

I mean, wow, I guess I never expected you to be an Obama fan. Well done, and I applaud you on your intellectual consistency on this issue.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 1 month ago

"Why not let this 18 year old buy one automatic weapon, register it and make it against the law for him to sell it to the Mexican crime groups."

If the appropriate backgound check is clean, why not? I mean he should be able to buy the weapon, not sell it to anyone without all the same background checks.

I only note it because that is almost the opposite of what we have now. It takes federal licenses, local approval, special permits and lots of other bureaucratic business to buy an automatic weapon. Basically, it's extremely hard to get a license for automatic weapons, and some never will because of their past.

You say let them buy ONE.

You are advocating for the wrong group.

So you go through the trouble, have a good record and buy your $20,000 M16. Full auto - rock n roll. Finally - you are cool! But do you think you have any chance of selling your $20,000 rifle when a drug kingpin can get a black market AK47 for $1500 in Mexico? Go after the criminals if you have to go after anybody, but leave the people that abide by the law alone.

0

50YearResident 2 years, 1 month ago

You have no idea what the gun laws are in Arizona, do you? If I were you I wouldn't be calling other posters morons when you are definately are one yourself. Did you know the guns provided to the Mexican Drug people were furnished by none other than the Government of the United States? Get your facts straight before posting more drivel.

0

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

Are you saying that before Fast and Furious that the Mexican Drug people used bows and arrows? Silly. The transportation of guns purchased in the States across the Mexican border was happening long before Fast and Furious and will continue for a long time after.

0

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

If you don't have a criminal record and are 18 or older you can go to a gun show in Arizona and purchase as many (automatic) weapons as your money will allow. You can then turn around and sell them to whomever and that party can do the same. This is how guns are "walking" and Arizona law is written such that it is all legal. Therefore, the Mexican criminals are being armed by "legal" US weapons. The ATF has been trying to stop this but are continually stopped by US laws. Until the laws are changed,weapons will walk across the border.

I would suggest you do some research before you make a fool out of yourself posting your all braun and no brains drivel.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 1 month ago

"So you think its ok for an 18 year old who doesn't have any criminal record to walk into an arizona gun store and buy fifty or a thousands of automatic weapons?"

These are two important maxims for you to learn.

1: One does not simply walk into Mordor. and 2: One does not simply buy an automatic weapon.

Now that you know those two things, I'm sure you will improve the factual bases of your posts.

0

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

happens all the time. Now maybe you had your wake up call and you should look into it deeper than your knee jerk.

0

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

That is a good post. You prove you are very good at falling into line and contributing to the very thing your post complains about. The bandits in Mexico are being armed by legal weapons sold in the United States. The same laws that have kept the ATF from being able to stop the guns from "walking" across the border. The same laws that the republican congress supports and the same congress that is conducting their witch hunt on Holder. The same Congress that buckles under the threat of the NRA spending billions of dollars to run them out of office if they don't keep voting against any kind of reasonable gun control. The cycle just continues.

2

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

False, you go ahead and believe whatever crap you want to believe. You make a compelling argument for gun control.

1

Flap Doodle 2 years, 1 month ago

The 1% has now become the 3%? That's inflation don't you know.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 1 month ago

97 doesn't look as good as 99 on a poster. They don't care about the number, they just want to hang out and party.

Admit it, you want to go join in just to hang out for a while and you're mad because the Lawrence version gave up and went back to their sorority halls.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 1 month ago

oneillnataliad is a lousy, rotten spammer posting lousy, rotten spam.

0

Larry Sturm 2 years, 1 month ago

Until we quit pandering the rich and large corporation with tax cuts and congress with their insider trading, and going to work for large corporations as lobists, our economy won't grow do to the deregulating of thirty years ago.

1

Carol Bowen 2 years, 1 month ago

Deregulation of banks allowed them to develop hedge funds and derivatives. That's what tanked our economy. They were allowed to invest our savings (pensions, IRAs, ..) in high risk funds without our knowledge. I think that deregulation under president Clinton.

0

camper 2 years, 1 month ago

The Glass-Steagal act (banking) was repealed in 1999. This gave many banks the green light to participate in more risky investments. But a lot of the problem was poor regulation. The SEC completely dropped the ball by allowing derivatives, credit default swaps, and bundling mortgages into financial instruments. In many ways the regulation was already in place, there was just a bad job of interpretation by the regulators. Almost like they looked the other way.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 1 month ago

BTW, writing a letter intended to decry the use of fear tactics in politics and starting the first sentence with one of the "be afraid, be very afraid" talking points of the DNC is irony personified.

0

Carol Bowen 2 years, 1 month ago

I cannot make myself go to stoopidpoliticians.com. Can you refer to something more factual and in context?

0

RoeDapple 2 years, 1 month ago

"Gun nut" is so 1970's. Please think of me as a weapons enthusiast.

By the way, you "antis" are so laughable in your misconceptions.

1

labmonkey 2 years, 1 month ago

Take the gun nut mantle and be proud of it. I am.

0

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

So does this make me and anti-Bea?

0

Darrell Lea 2 years, 1 month ago

Good letter and all valid points, E. Kent. Keep them coming.

1

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 1 month ago

U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan in 2003--13,600. U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan in 2011--98,000.

http://www.bollyn.com/public/Afghanistan_U.S._Troop_levels.JPG

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 1 month ago

The Stench Of Truth: The Bush Co. administration gave more money to Pakistan than Obama has.

"Since 1948, the United States has pledged more than $30 billion in direct aid, about half for military assistance. Two-thirds of this total was appropriated in the post-9/11 era from FY2002 to FY2011."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41856.pdf

Pakistan gave monetary aid to the terrorists of 9-11. "General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. "

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2001-10-09/india/27243646_1_isi-link-evidence-india

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/22/usa.september11

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 1 month ago

And the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex also arms police departments across the USA for their insane (and, oddly enough, unwinnable) "War On Drugs". Imagine that! Americans need to wake up and face the facts...We've been bamboozled and hoodwinked!

0

joatesiii 2 years, 1 month ago

I suppose that it is possible, however, I am not aware of anywhere that an 18 year old person can legally purchase a firearm...I am also not aware of any person being able to purchase an assault weapon anywhere in this country without an unbelieveable amount of paperwork and approval from BATF....and even then the weapon would have to be manufactured prior to 1986...it would most likely be an expensive process...I think most people would just go for a non-automatic/non-assault weapon...

0

joatesiii 2 years, 1 month ago

Oooops, I ask your forgiveness...18 is legal for long guns...I was referring to handguns....

0

tbaker 2 years, 1 month ago

So Mr. Hayes, what exactly is your point? Ban guns? Is that what you are trying to communicate?

Gun control schemes always fail. Think I’m wrong? Provide one example of how denying law-abiding citizens’ access to guns makes them safer. Look at Chicago. They have some of the toughest gun control laws in the US but yet they’ve had over 250 homicides this year. Statistically you’d be safer in Kabul Afghanistan.

Gun control has always been about more and greater government control, not about guns. Wise up Mr. Hayes.

1

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

How many murders are there in countries where guns are banned? How does this compare per capita to the U.S.?

I believe that on the world view, full gun control actually does make people safer.

Of course, we can never get that here, so instead we should consider reasonable regulations to make sure that it is more difficult for the Jared Loughners and for criminals to get access, wouldn't you agree. Do you really think guns should be sold without any kind of background check on the purchaser? You see, sometimes it really is about gun control.

0

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

Yes, as in none for all citizens -- and among industrialized, leading nations. There seem to be far more homocides per capita in the U.S. than in Australia, or Japan, for instance. I say homocides rather than just gun deaths because of course people are killed in many different ways and not just by guns. However, the gun deaths in America are exceedingly high.

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 1 month ago

Deaths in the USA by motor vehicle in 2008--37,261. Deaths in the USA by firearms in 2008--11,493. Motor vehicle deaths in America are exceedingly high--out numbering firearms 3 to 1. Now what do we do? Give everyone a gun and tell them to stop driving~!

1

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

That would be a compelling argument if they didn't have auto accidents in other countries. However, they do. What they don't have, if they have gun bans, are large numbers of homicides by guns. Why deny this? The question is, are the extra deaths worth having guns? Some think yes, others do not.

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 1 month ago

Firearms are a Right, granted to us by the Constitution, driving is not. Far more people die by vehicle than firearm, but that's okay because other countries have automobiles? I think it hypocritical to call for stronger regulation of guns siting firearm deaths when there are more people dying via automobile (and poor diet), which is a privilege and not a right. Why is there no outcry for stronger regulation for automobiles and those who drive them? In your mind 37,000 deaths a year by automobile is not excessive and unnecessary, but 12,000 by firearm is. How do you justify that?

The government could do something to stem the flow of blood on our highways. Lower the speed limit...stop handing over drivers licenses with minimal requirement for instruction and experience...annual inspection of vehicles...closer monitoring of those drivers over the age of 80, etcetera. Have you ever been victim to a gun crime? I have not. Have you ever been in an automobile accident? I have, several times. Even more people are dying every year because of poor choices concerning diet and exercise! Firearms are a necessary evil and the least of our worries.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 1 month ago

"Do you really think guns should be sold without any kind of background check on the purchaser?"

Background checks are done on all purchasers through NICS. Depends on the state whether there's an imposed delay regardless of an "immediate proceed" response from NICS.

0

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

Unless the purchaser is making a purchase from a private seller at a gun show, then there is no background check ... at least not in Arizona.

However, the question is, are we really better off as a nation with the complete free exchange of firearms without any regulations, or are some regulations reasonable? If some regulations are reasonable, what, as RoeD observes, is reasonable?

0

jaywalker 2 years, 1 month ago

Well, sure, there is NO way to regulate sales from private sellers; it'd be like tracking shovels.

"However, the question is, are we really better off as a nation with the complete free exchange of firearms without any regulations, "

How can that be the question when it's false on it's face? There is no free exchange of firearms and there are regulations.

0

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I wasn't saying that we currently have a free exchange of firearms, but asking if that is what is desired. I mention regulations, and instantly people start saying no without even know what regulations I might be considering. Some would want the free exchange, wouldn't you agree? I know most wouldn't want that, so the real questions are: What regulations can be considered a middleground, and what is acceptable by a majority?" I have no doubt it would not be what I would want to see happen, but it wouldn't be what the NRA asks for either -- or at least i don't think so.

Also, private sellers at gun shows CAN be regulated.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 1 month ago

Gotcha. I'm sure there are people that believe guns should be allowed to be bandied about like trading cards, glad they're not runnin' the show. Personally, I don't believe anyone needs to own an assault weapon, but other than that I don't know what sort of regulations would fly or make much difference.

Sure, gun shows might be regulated somehow but the effectiveness of the regulation is in question before it starts, if for no other reason than two people can agree to deal under the table. Sales between citizens is virtually untrackable without amending the Constitution. In your original post you mention making it difficult for the Loughners and criminals to obtain weapons; it already is through legal channels. A felon can't obtain a gun legally; Loughner went to a gun shop and was processed through NICS. It's unfortunate that he didn't have the kind of record that would have been red-flagged immediately, but to my knowledge he'd only had bouts of strange or inappropriate behavior before the shooting, nothing to warrant a mental health record, and he had no violent criminal history. And that's the thing: Loughner's are going to happen, just like pedophiles. There's just no way to prevent such things, at least not until we go all "Minority Report" on folks, or pre-identifying violent traits through DNA (something I could see happening in a hundred years or so)

0

jaywalker 2 years, 1 month ago

I meant to add in reference to Loughner, even if Arizona had a mandatory waiting period he still would have allowed to purchase. There was nothing on his record to warrant denying him.

0

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

While a felon can't obtain a gun legally, as you state, we sure don't make it difficult for a felon to obtain a gun. A private seller who is set up at a gun show selling dozens of guns during the course of a weekend, weekend after weekend, is not doing any of us any favors. Stronger regulations on these should be made, and yes, perhaps we should have greater regulations on all private sales. I can't sell a can of beer to someone without determining if they are a minor as a private seller, so why can a private seller sell a gun to someone without determining if that person is or is not a felon? (I'm reaching here, I realize, but I am trying to think of what can be done before just saying, we can't do anything about the problem.)

You are correct about Loughner. That is why the argument from that is made by some about anyone having access to extended clips, etc... When does the desire for self defense become an unnecessary arsenal?

By the way, thanks for being one of the few people who admit that the Loughners in our society is just the price we pay for having guns. It is a trade off, deaths in society for the rights to have liberal access to firearms. Not a trade off I am comfortable with, but it is the trade off our society has chosen to accept.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 1 month ago

"we sure don't make it difficult for a felon to obtain a gun"

I feel where you're coming from, but how can we possibly prevent a criminal act like that? I'm with ya on the private sellers at gun shows, though again, I reckon there are plenty of those individuals that would skirt the checks if implemented. The only possible catch-all solution would be to make gun owners register all guns, and that won't ever happen.
And I agree on clips for assault weapons and such mass-damage weapons are unnecessary in people's hands. I'm positive the vast majority of owners of such weapons pose no threat; however, they are the preferred weapon of Columbine style killers and I think their elimination from the public would be for the greater good.
As to Loughner and the trade-off....depressing, I know. But then we face those kind of trade-offs every day; our international diplomacy thrives and crashes on them.

0

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

Declarations of War and fear tactics? Seriously? Well, this letter has let me know that I must now be afraid of Republicans.

(Is that irony?)

Sorry, but all politicians at some point run on fear of some kind -- fear of what the other guys and gals will do / won't do / are doing / aren't doing. Republicans are far from being alone in this regard.

0

tbaker 2 years, 1 month ago

The War Powers Act (1973) made congress declaring war unnecessary. They get to dodge a politically dangerous vote and lay all the blame on the President. In exchange, he gets to do what he wants and simply has to "inform" congress when the military is used. Sen. Sessions should know this. His being "breathless" was just theatrics for the dumb masses.

With Vietnam as a pretext, the act was suppose to limit the President's ability to employ the military but in practical terms it has expanded it. The congress is supposed to be the branch that decides whether or not our military is employed by declaring war, and once decided, the President determines how to fight the war as the commander in chief. In reality, the constitution is ignored, and even the War Powers Act itself is ignored and there are no consequences.

1

RoeDapple 2 years, 1 month ago

So bea, what do you mean by "reasonable regulations"? Reasonable by your standards or mine?

0

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

Since I said reasonable standards, obviously I meant mine. Duh.

0

RoeDapple 2 years, 1 month ago

Damn. Guess that means the Howitzer has to go back.

0

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

Or you can re-enlist in military service and take it with you. Seems reasonable to me.

0

RoeDapple 2 years, 1 month ago

re? So bea, I have some 4th grade math for you. In March I had 550lbs of lead ingots. I now have 35lbs of ingots. I have been casting projectiles weighing 200gr. and there are 7000gr. per lb. Taking into account there was 38lbs of unusable slag, how many projectiles were cast?

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 1 month ago

16,695 projectiles. I hope you have a progressive press and a lubri-sizer!

0

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

Oh shucks, CL answered before I could get to it. I was going to nail that one, too, especially the progressive press part. Honest.

2

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 1 month ago

Sorry about that, I couldn't resist...I love math.

0

Carol Bowen 2 years, 1 month ago

My concern is the all out effort to buy the election. The more money available, the more mind-twisting we will see and hear.

Rather than refer to extremes, we need to find common ground in the middle. The extremes offer good input, but they the cannot combine efforts and accomplish direction.

Right now, the effort to blame the economy on the president is ludicrous. No president has that kind of control. If you read stock market reports, the Wall Street Journal, etc., companies are not adding jobs because they do not know how to plan. Congress needs to get it's act together and stabilize our direction. Extremes cannot do that. Common ground is needed.

3

Barleycorn 2 years, 1 month ago

I'm not sure about the guns issue, but it is clear that our Governor is taking money away from the most needy & depositing it into the rich's bank account, & then he goes to Church on Sunday.

1

bliddel 2 years, 1 month ago

Only law abiding citizens obey gun laws.

0

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 1 month ago

Can't even begin to tell you how much I love this...

0

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

tange, that was beautiful! Thanks.

0

jonas_opines 2 years, 1 month ago

There's at least a . . . touch . . . of irony in using absolutist, all-encompassing, fear-promoting statements to warn about Republicans and Conservatives using absolutist, all-encompassing, fear-promoting statements.

0

beatrice 2 years, 1 month ago

Pretty much any time you see the word "war" relating to anything to do with a political issue, and it isn't an actual war being discussed, then you know fear mongering is involved. That doesn't mean there aren't attacks on people of a certain group by another group, but if explosives aren't being used, it likely isn't an a "war." Yes, every party is guilty, dems and reps, libertarians and green-party, and it is nonsense to say one is worse than the other.

0

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

I think your confusing the people who are making the observation with the people who are imposing the "fear mongering"

0

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

Now that Republicans have declared war on the middle class and brazenly thrown their support to the top 3 percent, they need something to convince the people who actually work for a living to vote for them. It turns out their most effective weapon is weapons.

Just about sums it up.

0

msezdsit 2 years, 1 month ago

Although debating semantics doesn't cure the systematic destruction of the middle class that the republican party has championed, the lte is about "fear mongering,"so i'll give you this one.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 1 month ago

"courageous political leaders who say we must get assault weapons off the streets"

I managed to make it here. Assault weapons are illegal to own without a specific license. Your "courageous political leaders" are pandering for votes by lying.

We are all smart guys. We know that an AR15 is a great all-around rifle to have on a farm. It's light, has nice range and isn't afraid to get dirty. It's also just a great gun. They are a blast to shoot and cool to own. So why shouldn't we have the right to own AR15s?

An assault rifle is a small automatic weapon (an M4 Assault rifle for instance) that shoots lots of rounds with one pull of a trigger. An AR15 will fire one single bullet with each pull of the trigger.

I fired my army issued M16 enough times in semi and auto to know the difference.

Do you not understand the difference?

The "courageous political leaders" know just as well as I do that the term "assault weapon" is being used intentionally wrong to pander to the anti-gun crowd. They know hood and well what an assault weapon and they know they are lying. I know they are lying.

You believe them. The joke is on you.

balance > /dev/null

0

Jim Phillips 2 years, 1 month ago

Between this article and the voter fraud article, it is becoming quite obvious the libs are running scared and pulling out all of the old, lame rhetoric.Their Utopia is waning. I like it!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.