Ravenwood - 10/19/04 06:30 AM
If gun grabbers wouldn't keep repeating the same old lies, I wouldn't have to keep rebutting them. Frankly, I am more than tired of the same old crap being shoveled over and over again by the ignorant news media.
One more time:
1. The so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" has nothing to do with automatic firearms.And that's just from one article. Sheesh.2. The so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" has nothing to do with silencers. Suppressors (as they are accurately called) are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934.
3. All gun dealers must perform a NICS background check regardless of where they sell the firearm. (Gun shows included.)
4. If so-called "Assault Weapons" are "solely used for the purpose of attacking other human beings" why do the police have them?
5. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with preventing government oppression. (As do the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights.)
6. So called "Assault Weapons" are no more lethal than regular firearms that fire the same ammunition. A 7.62 x 39 round is just as lethal coming out of an un-banned SKS rifle as it is coming out of a banned AK-47.
7. Just how does one "spread" bullets? Presuming the author meant "spray", just how does one "spray" bullets when only one round is fired for each trigger pull?
8. Just how does a silencer (which isn't even regulated by the 1994 Clinton Gun Ban) or a flash suppressor make a rifle more lethal?
UPDATE: By the way, I sent this to them as "feedback". We'll wait and see how long it takes them to post it. (if ever)
UPDATE2: Reader Steve Scudder notes: (11/29) Comments are finally posted on this website. I would probably have known of it earlier had the email stating as such been properly addressed. As expected, the majority of the comments point out the glaring faults in the basic arguments presented against guns (portayed as "assault weapons" as usual) and, surprise, seem to be unedited. It is too bad that the comments took so long to be posted. Hopefully, they will serve as more than a footnote to those persons this publication is intended to inform.
Can't disagree, I'm tired of the never ending BS myself. However, think #4 through ... the cops don't use their guns to hunt woodchucks much do they?
BTW, I hear that in some Scandanavian countries hunters are required to use suppressors. Gunblast can damage your hearing, but you don't want to wear earplugs while hunting, so it just makes good sense. Even the best ones can only reduce the noise to merely very loud.
Posted by: Drew at October 19, 2004 2:14 PMWe have the technology, so why not use it? The benefits are enormous.
Granted you cannot silence a supersonic round, muffling the report would still have a tremendous benefit (as you pointed out.)
As for the criminal element, just like with illegal guns, they can easily get their hands on them if they want them.
Posted by: Ravenwood at October 19, 2004 2:30 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
