tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34529754.post1506264154189583200..comments2023-10-16T07:06:52.428-05:00Comments on Armed and Safe: Al Jazeera tells hunters not to fight for gun rightsKurt '45superman' Hofmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34529754.post-29937098593779713812014-06-25T10:08:26.537-05:002014-06-25T10:08:26.537-05:00I don't know how common the "Fudds" ...I don't know how common the "Fudds" really are; most gun owners (and advocates of freedom in general, whether they choose to own guns or not) are smart enough to recognize the "assault weapon" hysteria for what it is: divide-and-conquer. <br /><br />Also, most gun owners realize that it's unrealistic to make distinctions between "good" and "evil" weapons. Dead is dead, whether you are shot by a maniac on a shooting spree with an AK-47, or by a mugger with a five-shot .38 revolver. Or blown up by terrorists with an IED made with a pressure cooker. Or, for that matter, run over by a reckless driver. <br /><br />And most of us realize that the distinctions are just to allow the anti-gun (actually, anti-freedom) activists to look moderate and reasonable. And it really is a slippery slope. Their definition of "assault weapon" is so broad and vague that it can include anything they want to ban, from an AR-15 to a single-shot antique musket.<br /><br />You sometimes see comments on blogs, or letters in newspaper op-ed pages, saying things like, "I'm a gun owner and hunter but I support banning assault rifles and semi-automatic guns." But a lot of those commenters are just anti-gun trolls, and their comments are intended to make it appear that people who own guns for non-sporting purposes (i.e., self-defense) are a lunatic fringe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com