The debate in Maryland over the proposed ban there, on so-called "assault weapons" (I've mentioned that ban proposal before) is heating up, as the bill approaches a vote.
Never mind that more people are murdered with knives and clubs than with all long guns (not just "assault weapons"--all shotguns and rifles), never mind that "assault weapons" are functionally identical to many firearms that are not classified as "assault weapons," and never mind that they fire the same ammunition--with no more power, and no more ability to penetrate body armor than other rifles. Still, we are supposed to believe that these firearms represent a huge threat to society.
The Maryland bill's sponsor, Senator Mike Lenett, makes some particularly odd arguments.
Sen. Mike Lenett, D-Montgomery, described the weapons as ones "built to be fired from the hip rather than aimed from the shoulder, allowing the user to spray a large quantity of ammunition from high capacity magazines over a wide area at close range as quickly as possible."So, let me get this straight--"assault weapons" aren't good for target shooting, because they're designed for fast firing, and are thus not suitable for accurate shooting--and they were used in sniper shootings in 2002.
"These weapons are particularly ill-suited to hunting or target-shooting, but remarkably well-suited to killing a lot of people in a hurry," said Lenett, who is the bill's chief sponsor and mentioned the sniper slayings in 2002 that left seven Maryland residents dead as one reason why such a law is needed.
Wait a second--isn't sniping, by definition, precision shooting, usually from a distance? This genius screams that they're "bad" because they're not accurate enough, and then, almost in the same breath, "strengthens" that argument by saying that they're "bad" because they're accurate enough to be used by snipers.
Does anyone still think that there are any guns this mentally incompetent despot thinks are suitable for possession by the lowly masses?
Stumble it!
7 comments:
"built to be fired from the hip rather than aimed from the shoulder..."
What an idiot. I'd like to know what his reference is. The A-Team, perhaps Rambo?
Could be either one of those (or both).
The arguments against "assault weapons" almost always include a reference to "spray firing from the hip." You know what? When I trained on a real assault rifle, the M-16, there wasn't a single reference to that kind of shooting, and if I had tried it at the range--well let's just say that I'm glad I didn't.
Yeah, I can imagine what kind of paroxysm Drill Sergeant Keith would have launched into if I'd have sprayed anything on the range at Ft. Leonard Wood. Got to love it when fear mongering is represented as fact. Propaganda at it's best. Sad thing is, the grass grazers will probably swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
I'm not so certain these kinds of stories are so much about so-called "assault" weapons as they are about the next target of the anti's: shotguns. Just wait, having already set the rules of discussion regarding assault weapons, they'll next start saying that a man with a shotgun doesn't even have to "spray" gunfire--the weapon does that for him by its very nature. They may even have to stage some horrific club shooting where the perp enters with just a hunting-grade 12 gauge loaded with buckshot and murders a dozen innocent teens.
I see, 1957, that like me you find the shooting sprees just too damn consistently convenient to be as random as presented.
Downright Montaukian.
And I'll bet he thinks handguns are designed to be held horizontally, just like it shows in the movies.
Post a Comment