David Ziegler is a retired federal agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. His views are his own. [More]No, they're not. They've been shared by every totalitarian, thug "Only One" enforcer, trough-feeder, subversive enabler, useful idiot lickspittle and ingratiating dependent parasite since man first developed organized rule over others.
"Progressives" have no original ideas, just rebooted schemes for control.
[Via Andy M]
3 comments:
After reading that Op-Ed, I would use the word "Traitor" as more appropriate.
Here's the thing about their poster child of high capacity magazines, particularly the 100 round and up examples: THEY JAM!
Imagine being an engineer trying to get a magazine spring to provide enough pressure on the magazine follower when a few rounds are compressing it yet not too much when the mag is topped off with a hundred rounds or more. I'm not saying it can't be done. Just saying it is apparently damned difficult to do.
Why do you suppose the Aurora batman premier shooter dropped his AR and switched to his backup shotgun?
Why do you suppose our military doesn't use them?
But don't clue in "Beta Man" O'Rourke, et. al. Let them continue to hammer "high capacity magazines" and the NRA. It might keep them from focusing on where the action really is.
So, according to this tool, 25pct of mass shootings are done "by" semiautomatic rifles. So what is doing the other 75 pct and why isn't this exemplar of officialdom agitating against those "evil" weapons? Well, we all know the answer to that, folks. They tried to ban handguns in the early 1980s and found out that the public didn't want that. So "assault rifles" were thought to be a soft target. That was before the millennium, when modern sporting rifles became so popular. But they haven't changed their tune, showing a certain tone-deafness. And, 300 rd mag? Never seen one and wouldn't trust it if I had.
Post a Comment