AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifles have become the favorite gun of American mass shooters. These weapons were made to do one thing: kill as many people as quickly as possible. In the 14 years since the federal assault weapons ban expired, we have seen mass shootings become more frequent and far more lethal.
It is time for Congress to revisit a federal ban on semi-automatic assault rifles like the AR-15. They should also take action to regulate these weapons the same way we regulate fully automatic weapons and other class 3 weapons. Congress should also take action to regulate high capacity magazines and accessories that are designed to increase lethality. By regulating assault weapons, high capacity magazines and accessories like bump stocks, Congress can take significant action that will save American lives.
December 13, 2018
Five gun violence prevention priorities for the incoming Congress
[I find it very telling that the link to this article (thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/421292-five-gun-violence-prevention-priorities-for-the-incoming-congress) puts it in the civil rights category. Is this a subtle acknowledgement that they know the proposals are a violation of civil rights?
One should note that, “gun violence” decreased since the “assault weapon ban” expired in 2004. And rifles of any type, AR-15s being a subset, are only rarely used in crime. But liars lie. You can’t expect them to tell the truth.
Since AR-15 type rifles are the most popular gun in the U.S. and the Heller decision makes it clear that firearms “in common use” it means such a ban would be unconstitutional. But people like Horwitz do not care about specific enumerated rights.—Joe]
The first paragraph in the quote reminded me of this;
“When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8:44
The first paragraph, all of lies, only sets the stage for the coup de grâce in the second paragraph. It’s the hypnosis, preparing his victims for the implant, the hypnotic suggestion.
But the second paragraph can be fixed up to make perfect sense, revealing the agenda, by changing a single word.
Replace “American” with “criminals'” in the last sentence and you have the whole story of the last 150 years of “gun control”;
“Congress can take significant action that will save criminals’ lives.
The law-abiding are encumbered by such laws and Prohibitions, and criminals of course are not– Criminals are encouraged, empowered and enriched by them.
It’s certainly no puzzle, no mystery; Predators want easier prey. What remains to be understood?
I could suggest one thing. It still does not appear to be generally understood;
The motivation for “gun control” laws is so simple, so obvious, and the lies are so transparent, that a small child, and even a dog, can understand it, yet we continue to believe that “stupid people” who support gun control “just don’t get it”, and we make fun of their “stupidity”, their “inability to reason” and “rejection of facts”, etc.
But I say to you; everyone understands the issue at some level, and plainly. It is not a person’s intelligence or ability to observe, to reason or to understand, which determines his position on this issue, but his allegiance. Regardless which side you’re allied with, you want that side to have the guns.
That allegiance, in turn, will determine the rationalizations a person must use to justify and support his alliance.
Where his intelligence comes in will be in the skill with which he presents his case, and that follows whether he be a liar in allegiance with criminals or a speaker of the truth in allegiance with the law-abiding.
Thus the cause (allegiance) has it’s effect (the argument), and we too often put the effect before the cause, thus failing to comprehend the tactical situation.
If we’re ever to succeed, we’ll have to focus like a laser beam on the person’s allegiance, and not so much on the lies and other actions which follow as a symptom of that allegiance.
And so now we’re looking at a rather different “theater of conflict”, aren’t we? And gun ownership and gun use probably don’t even have a role in it. What, for example, determines one’s allegiance, and how does one approach the task of flipping another’s allegiance? And to what, verses what else, are we even talking about being allied? And to what extent is it even possible to flip people’s allegiances? I believe that, for the most part, we’re fighting blind in this particular, tactical environment.
(Shhhh…the Jesuits have all that down to a mature, applied science, for the wrong side of course, and they’re fighting the fight skillfully, but don’t tell anyone)
Ignoring how wrong he is, this reads like a middle school essay.
General terms, vague assertions, and very, very simple to read.
Also, could he not fit more buzzwords in there?
The problem is that many, if not most people, will believe his assertions. They simply have no basis to question them.
In particular, they have no memory of a time before ‘mass shootings’ when anybody could buy a gun and yet there were few mass shootings.
Our culture has changed from every boy should learn to hunt and shoot, to guns are dangerous. Remember when toy guns became a no-no? When was the last time you heard of kids playing Cowboys and Indians? And since they have no use for a gun they simply say ‘that sounds reasonable’.
Sure we can find fault with his statements, but most people will not.
“But people like Horwitz do not care about specific enumerated rights.”
On the contrary, they care very sincerely about specific enumerated rights. They simply see such rights as an impediment.
Typo: expired in 2014. — 2004