Today's JPFO Alert notes that if Bernie Sanders' position in the gun rights/"gun control" debate is the "middle" he claims it to be, there's no room for "extreme" short of mandatory capital punishment for gun ownership.
Sanders' idea of the "middle" would also ban semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifles--popularly, if inaccurately, referred to as "assault weapons"--and the "high capacity" (gun ban zealot-speak for "standard capacity") magazines that feed them. This is the "middle"? Sending people to prison for buying the most popular class of centerfire rifles in America is his idea of respecting the rights of gun owners? Prison time for buying an 11-round magazine is the "compromise" he wants to sell us? Outlawing the most useful arms for defense of one's home, one's life, one's family, and one's liberty is part of the give-and-take he proposes?
Stumble it!
3 comments:
Anti-gun activists' version of "compromise:"
1. Ban modern firearms, but allow older types to remain legal. For now.
2. When crime goes up, or after a highly publicized tragedy (Charleston, Sandy Hook, Aurora), claim that the gun ban "did not go far enough," and ban obsolescent weapons.
3. When crime still gets worse, repeat the "did not go far enough" meme, and ban obsolete weapons, too.
Whenever anti-gun laws (or any "Progressive" policies) fail, the proponents cite the failure as proof of the need for more of the same. They advocate "reasonable, common sense gun control." Then, when that fails, they say it was because the law was not Draconian enough.
Ben Carson's Criminal Past: Click Here For Why We Need Doctor Control and Not Gun Control
Ron From National Parks Depot
We are pro second amendment as well. Who do you feel would be the best candidate for the presidential election regarding gun laws?
Post a Comment