silly liberals

so i found this article link today, and i had to laugh as i read it. it has to do with gun control.

now, i openly admit i am 100% supportive of the 2nd amendment, and I am anti-gun control in the way liberals describe. read the following article, and i think you will understand.

The Truth - About assault rifles. Those evil assault rifles.
a post written by Shawn McCarthy
Saturday, September 13 at 9:10 PM

Attack of the terrible “assault” rifles.

During Charlie Gibson’s interview with GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin, he asked a question pertaining to so-called “assault” rifles. I am going to show you the question and demonstrate how she SHOULD have answered.


Watch out friends, this is one of the things the dems are going to try if the Obamessiah gets into the White House, with their interpretations of the Constitution as a “living document.”


GIBSON: 70% of Americans support a ban on assault rifles, would you favor such a ban?


What PALIN should have said:


Well, Charlie, I wonder what you mean by “assault rifle.” Traditional assault weapons are weapons that can be fired on either semi-automatic or fully automatic and have a selector switch to pick between the two options. Oh, am I loosing you already, ok I will explain the differences,


You see, Charlie, a fully automatic weapon is one where you pull the trigger and the weapons fires until its ammunition supply is exhausted. These weapons are excessively regulated already by the United States government. Is that what you mean by “assault rifle?” Well, Charlie, if it is, I must say that I do not support banning them. Why? Well, research would show. . . What?

I am loosing you again?

You need me to explain “research?” Ok Charlie, research is something REAL journalists and citizens who wish to exercise their right to vote responsibly engage in prior to casting their vote or asking dumb-ass questions. . . What? No Charlie, I am not explaining “responsibly.” You will have to look that up yourself later.


So let’s pretend you were a real journalist and you did your research. You would find that assault weapons, the fully automatic kind, are almost never used in crimes. In fact, in the last 50 years, an American Civilian has NEVER used a legally owned fully automatic “assault” weapon in a crime. As it stands, civilians who wish to own a fully automatic weapon must apply for a pricey license from the Department of Treasury and then pay very high prices for the weapon itself, since importation and manufacture of automatic weapons for civilian use have been prohibited since 1986. As you can imagine, Charlie, that drives the prices up a tad.


So Charlie, is that what you mean by the question? Well I sure cannot see much of a need for a ban on a weapon that is never used in crimes and is already prohibited from importation and manufacture. Can you, Charlie?


Or did you mean a broader definition of “assault” rifle? Maybe you meant weapons which were banned by the Clinton “assault” weapons ban in the 90s? Is that what you mean, Charlie?

Well, let’s look at the characteristics which made a weapon scary enough to be banned by Clinton. The weapons covered in the Clinton ban were semi-automatic weapons cap- oh, sorry Charlie, semi-automatic means you pull the trigger once, and one bullet comes out of the barrel.

You keeping up with me Charlie?

So as I was saying, the Clinton ban covered semi-automatic weapons capable of taking a detachable magazine that also contained two or more of the following features:

-A folding or telescoping stock

-A pistol grip

-A bayonet mount

-A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one

-A grenade launcher.


I know Charlie, those things do sound scary. Well, stop wetting yourself and slow your breathing and I will explain each one of them for you.


-The folding or telescopic stock simply reduces the weight of the rifle and makes it adjustable for people of different sizes. In a way it promotes diversity.


-The pistol grip is simply a place to rest your hand when firing the gun, and on some guns it offers extra means of stabilizing the rifle while you are shooting it.


-The bayonet mount is the means for attaching a bayonet, which is sometimes simply a knife, to the end of the rifle. I know Charlie, knifes are also scary, but rest assured that most people don’t ever attach bayonets to their rifles because it can hurt their accuracy when they are shooting. The bayonet mounts are just on a lot of rifles because many of the rifles we buy are military rifles from other countries that aren’t being used anymore; its kind of like recycling. The people just leave the mounts on for cosmetic reasons, or simply because it is more of a pain in the butt to take them off. I do understand your concerns of the dangers of bayonets though, we would hate to have a break-out of mass bayonetings.


-A flash suppressor is a device which minimizes the bright stuff that comes out of the end of a barrel when you shoot a gun. These are useful for military snipers or marksmen engaging from a distance who do not want to give away their position. They are usually just left on imported rifles like the bayonet mounts. Sometimes they are combined with compensators which make the rifle’s recoil easier to control.


-Grenade launchers are also very scary. Yes, you can hug me while I talk to you about them. It’s ok Charlie, it will be fine, no one is going to hurt you. The grenade launchers that are sometimes found on rifles are for special grenades which would be attached to the end of the rifle, then set off by a special round which does not actually fire a bullet but just creates enough gas to propel the grenade. These launchers entail nothing more than an attachment on the end of the barrel and a switch to redirect the gas generated by the spent round to the grenade. This gas usually pushes the bolt back and chambers the next round for the rifle. These launchers are part of the gas-operating systems of the rifle and would be very difficult to remove. Am I losing you Charlie? Well, rest assured that these launchers have NEVER been used for a crime in the United States. Someone would have to get their hands on the grenades AND the special cartridge to fire the grenade, so I don’t expect that anyone will be using those for liquor store robberies anytime soon.


So, Charlie, you are probably wondering, like many educated Americans did, why President Clinton would want to ban guns for such silly reasons. Well, I have my theories, but I think it was summed up well by an editorial in The Washington Post from September 15, 1994, which states:

“No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”


When most people hear the term “assault rifle” they simply think of military-style rifles. Let’s talk about some things military-style rifles have in common, other than scaring the crap out of liberals such as yourself. They tend to be simple to operate, simple to break down and clean, safer to operate, durable, reliable and fairly cheap to shoot (due to mass-produced, inexpensive ammo). They are also generally very difficult to conceal and are often times in weaker calibers than most hunting rifles.


What Charlie, you don’t understand why people would want to own these rifles anyway? Well, some people hunt with them but that is not their main purpose. Most people just like to collect them and shoot them for practice and sport. People collect all different sorts of things Charlie, from cars to baseball cards. Like you Charlie, you collect silly glasses and practice pretentious glances and you like to shoot out condescending and misleading “gotcha!” questions. And let’s not forget, shooting is a competitive sport, and many rifle shooting competitions require far more athleticism than, say, golf or bowling.


And really, Charlie, what does it matter why people want to own them? The beautiful thing about America is that we have the right to collect such things, and our Founding Fathers did not want silly alarmists to be able to prevent us from having them simply because they do understand them.


Let’s go back to some more research. You remember research from a few minutes ago, don’t you Charlie?

-Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. In fact, assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes.

-It is estimated that roughly one percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides).

-Between 1992 and 1996 less than 4% of mass murders, committed with guns, involved assault weapons. (Our deadliest mass murders have either involved arson or bombs.)

-There are close to 4 million assault weapons in the U.S., which amounts to roughly 1.7% of the total gun stock.

So, Charlie, back to your question. I wonder what was meant by the term “assault rifle.” How was it explained to the 70% of Americans who were polled and said they favored a ban? Was it explained at all? You see, as we have demonstrated, many Americans are ignorant about guns and are therefore easily swayed by scary words like “assault” and “bang.” I wonder if the person doing the poll spoke in a deep, scary voice when he said the word “assault.” Ass-ault! Don’t cry Charlie, stop shaking. See, fear-mongering from the left about guns can elicit a very emotional response from Americans who may mean well but just don’t know better.

Now that we have addressed the silliness of the assault weapons ban and the scare tactics employed by the left, I would like to point out something about our opponent in this race, Senator Obama.

Now, during his speech to the swooning masses at the DNC he said that there was no reason we cannot uphold the 2nd Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands drug dealers. Aside from the fact that, despite Hollywood’s depictions, drug dealers do not commonly use AK-47s, Obama’s statement was more than a little disingenuous. In a “Political Courage” survey on candidates’ positions, Obama said he supports a “Ban on the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.” The survey is available for all to see on votesmart.org. Notice how it says “weapons” and not “rifles.” This could potentially include the pistols and even some revolvers that many law-abiding Americans use to protect themselves and their families. Now I do not know what Senator Obama thinks, but that does not sound like “upholding the 2nd Amendment,” does it, Charlie?

Even more of a threat to our liberties is the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 or H.R. 1022. It was introduced last year and cosponsored by 66 democrats (and not a single republican). This fascist bill would not only ban all the weapons covered by the ridiculous Clinton ban, but it would add to that millions of guns which were modified to be in compliance with that ban.

This 2007 bill would ban:

- Common sporting rifles like the Ruger Mini 14 and Mini 30.

- All fixed-magazine, centerfire rifles which hold more that 10 rounds.

- All semi-automatic shotguns, which are widely used in trap shooting and hunting.

- All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire.

- The three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 “Garand.”

Fortunately this bill died, and even if it had not, President Bush would have vetoed it. But I assure you, friends, that if Obama ends up in office the democrats will try again. They will not rest until they have implemented oppressive gun laws depriving Americans of their right to hunt, sport-shoot and defend themselves. They want American gun laws to rival those of Europe.


Do you think such oppressive gun laws are a good idea, Charlie? I can think of a few people who thought that total gun control was a good idea. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Castro come to mind. Now Senator Obama can add his name to that list.


We gun owners have a saying, “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.”


Assault weapons, and legally owned guns in general, are not a danger to Americans. Those scary features that frighten the ignorant about “assault” rifles do not make them more of a threat to law-abiding Americans. That is, unless you were to try and ban them. Then all those features may be a problem when you come and try to take our guns from us.


We gun owners have another saying. “You can have my guns, when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.”


That’s what I think about your poll, Charlie.