So basically, they expect gun owners to give up stuff and in exchange won’t call them “ammosexuals” and racists, or accuse them of compensating for being underendowed? But if you disagree with them or their findings, your voice is “extreme”? [More]
And they're relying on Fudds and "new" gun owners who don't know any better to do it. My new Firearms News piece breaks down a symposium of prohibitionists and their "new" (it's been done before) strategy to swindle us out of our rights.
2 comments:
"If we were in a legislative hearing, and we had five or six gun owners get up, one after the other, and all testified in support of gun violence prevention legislation… it would be a game changer,"
I, an NRA Endowment Member, would probably be all for that.
The problem with the above is that, in the 60 or so years that I've been involved with this "nationwide conversation on gun safety" that apparently some on the Left are just becoming aware of, damn few true examples of "gun violence prevention legislation" have been proposed by the likes of the folks who participated in this symposium.
Someone needs to give them a clue. Call it whatever you want but gun control is still gun control.
You can't fundamentally change something by renaming it. Calling a skunk a rose won't get it past any reasonable sniff test.
You simply cannot polish up a turd and pass it off as the Hope Diamond.
This comment belongs here:
Unknown commented on "We're the Only Ones Included Enough"
3 hours ago
Is that '97%' monicker a straight on slap at the so-called '3%ers'? Fakes, phonies and astro-turfing frauds.
Post a Comment