I agree that assault guns and large ammunition holders are totally unnecessary and should be banned.
January 20, 2013
Comment to Please Take Away My Right to a Gun
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
I agree that ignorant fools who think they should be able to tell others how to live are totally unnecessary and should be banned.
I don’t know what an “assault gun” is, but “large ammunition holder” is much better than “assault clip” or “thirty magazine clip.” Did the antis finally get the memo about clips vs. magazines?
Giving Gutenkauf the benefit of the doubt regarding her knowledge of firearms and her understanding of the English language, and given that a “holder” is something very different from a “feeding device”, a “large ammunition holder” then would be something to hold, or contain, your 50 BMG cartridges, or maybe your 45-110 or 500 S&W, all of which, I assume, would qualify as “large ammunition”. It may also be any container for ammunition that is relatively large, such as a large shoe box, an ammo crate, a Duce and a Half, at al.
Why anyone would want to ban such common items is a mystery, and so, on the other hand, we are forced to revoke our doubt regarding Ms. Gutenkauf’s mental capacity.
An “assault gun” would be any gun used in the commission of an assault. The problem there is that a gun only becomes an assault gun after the fact, and so it would be rather pointless to ban them post facto. Anyway; a gun used in a crime is confiscated whenever the opportunity for law enforcement presents itself, so banning them would be redundant, especially considering that the perpetrator is also confiscated at the earliest opportunity. Again then, our assessment of Gutenkauf’s mental state, knowledge and/or reasoning ability must be one that is…unflattering.
All kidding aside, it is fascinating to see, over and over and over, the most ignorant and dysfunctional among us asserting themselves as would-be authorities over us. Indeed, it often seems as though ignorance in a given subject is offered as a resume enhancement in that quest for authority, but I have said many times that the Progressive/authoritarian mind is one that’s been turned almost perfectly and completely upside down.
It is a tragic thing, and we must be careful to avoid attacking the victim, whenever possible. The enemy is not the person, but the mindset that has been cruelly implanted into that person. It happened to me, and if you’d attacked me in my teens and early twenties, I might never have recovered.
Usually, the cure lies not in attacking the person, but informing people, generally, of the principles of liberty and self sufficiency, which are two sides of the same coin. I once advocated ridicule and social ostracism, but I’ve since changed my mind on that. We’re not against the person. We’re FOR the principles and ideals. Similarly; we’re not for the founders, as men, who were imperfect and sometimes contradictory. We’re for the principles that also motivated them. That may seem like a minor point, but I believe it to be a HUGE point that most people fail to understand.
I do not revere George Washington, or Adams, or Jefferson, et al, as “Great Men”. Any “greatness” they exhibited (and there certainly was greatness exhibited) came not from them but from the principles they attempted to embrace as best they could as flawed humans. Some people even pretend to uphold those same principles, for some selfish agenda (Republicans for but one example), and they’ve often been used by the enemy to discredit the principles themselves. It’s a neat trick for sure, but the principles are not at fault. The mindset that sought to represent the principles falsely and for its own purposes is at fault.
No, “assault gun” has a definition. We have had a consistent one for about 65 years.
It’s a direct fire, large caliber, reasonably high velocity, artillery piece (a “gun” or a “howitzer”), mounted in an armored chassis (usually in a casemate installation that limits traverse and elevation, but couts costs, size, and weight), designed and intended for direct fire support of infantry, for example, blowing large nasty holes in heavily fortified positions. They differ from “tank destroyers” primarily because they tend to use larger caliber, lower velocity shells, to maximize the explosive effect on target, whilst tank destroyers tended to be slightly smaller caliber guns with a velocity as high as possible, to maximize solid shot penetration of armor.
These are “assault guns”:
Ah. Thanks for the clarification.
Well, ya learn somethin’ every day!
Beat me to it.
An “ammunition holder” is a “box”, or a “shelf”, or a “cabinet”. Such things are evil and oughta be banned, by golly.
But I can hold 1000 rounds of 5.56….Am I a large ammo holder?
Dunno. How much do you weigh? Are you WHP? If your weight is OK and your BMI in the middling range, than you are an “average ammo holder.” If you are sized like an offensive lineman, then you are definitely a “large ammo holder.”
If you are a former AG, then you are a “bag Holder.”
1000 rounds of 5.56? I would say, “dilettante”. 😉
Hey, have you ever dropped a full 50 cal ammo can on your foot? Damn right those things are dangerous.
Can’t say as I have, but I can imagine it being unpleasant. There is of course an almost unlimited number of things that would be dangerous in the same way though. To “really make us all safe” then, we’d have to ban anything much heavier or harder than a Nerf ball.
Agriculture, being one of the most dangerous occupations, would be right out, so most people would have to stop eating. But Progressives do believe that there are billions too many people on Earth. Gutenkauf has a lot to explain here.
Alice, I lean towards Liberal/Progressives as being unnecessary and being totally banned, after all it is for the children.