Gold Supporter
Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 12,919
- Reactions
- 47,158
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He does say that the "assault weapons" are not deadlier than the hunting rifles. He probably thought that covered it or something.That was pretty well done. It would have been nice if he would have addressed the myth that a gun with a 30-round magazine is more lethal than a gun with a 10-round magazine. Or maybe the myth that a pistol grip is more deadly than a gun without one. But overall, well done.
He does say that the "assault weapons" are not deadlier than the hunting rifles. He probably thought that covered it or something.
He probably thought the magazines were a cosmetic difference too.I did catch that, but he really focused on the 'cosmetics'. Since the anti's love to go after magazine capacity, it would have been nice to have that myth thoroughly debunked as well. Still, a good video and one I'll be sharing with others.
Note to all I do not like the terms "Assault Rifle" and "High Capacity magazine"... They mean many different things to many different people , no matter whatever legal definition there may be.
Andy
And how does it compare to the fact that homicides (which includes self defense) are on the decline despite them being prevalent in the U.S? Or how these so called "assault weapons" are used in less homicides than handguns are (under 500 vs over a few thousand)?When someone brings up the "Assault Rifle" / "High Capacity magazine " argument , I like to point out that no matter the numbers of crimes or murders committed with a so called assault rifle or high capacity magazine ... Just how does that compare to the numbers of the legally owned and lawfully used guns and magazines of those types ( whatever they are ) that never are used in a crime?
Fairly balanced overview for such a short vid.
That nebulous access to impose "reasonable" limits on the Second Amendment (certain weapons, places, people) is THE leverage-point that career anti-gunners relentlessly seek to exploit, incorrectly as needed, setting new precedence for restrictions/bans/confiscation at every opportunity. And then call it law.
"Pro-gunners" not paying keen attention to that specific point have their heads buried deeply in the sand. Salem is counting on that.
Oh yeah? Well in regards to firearms there should only be one "reasonable" law. The 2nd Amendment.And therein lies a huge part of the problem - who defines "reasonable" limits? What's reasonable to one person is unreasonable to another. Then it gets left to the courts to help define "reasonable" And of course, if you get the kind of justices that populate the 9th circuit, you know how they're going to define "reasonable", and it certainly won't be to our benefit.
Like practicing law in court, so much of it boils down to semantics du jour.And therein lies a huge part of the problem - who defines "reasonable" limits? What's reasonable to one person is unreasonable to another. Then it gets left to the courts to help define "reasonable" And of course, if you get the kind of justices that populate the 9th circuit, you know how they're going to define "reasonable", and it certainly won't be to our benefit.