Lies and ignorance are the best they can muster

Lots of examples here but the conclusion is:

If “gun control” extremists actually want to ban “weapons of war”… why are they not calling for actual weapons of war to be banned with their zombie “assault weapon ban”?

And if all they want to do with this rotting, shambling piece of legislation is only ban “weapons of war” – as they’ve been trying to proclaim for nearly a month now – then why is all that other stuff included in the blast radius?

Perhaps they have no idea what they are talking about.
And perhaps they are being… less than honest.

To answer the question, it is because lies and ignorance are the best they can muster.


2 thoughts on “Lies and ignorance are the best they can muster

  1. All guns are weapons of war. There’s not an action type, from matchlock to flintlock to lever action to revolver to machinegun, that hasn’t been officially adopted for military use.

    Anyway, we digress. None of that has anything to do with the point. The second amendment clearly applies to military weapons, so any attempt to restrict their manufacture, distribution, sale or possession is, in addition to being a ruse based on lies, a criminal act.

    The narrative, the false assumptions and false dichotomies, have things so skewed that we’re incapable of staying on point. We’ll attack those on our side who want to stay on point. “We can’t go there yet”, or “this isn’t the time”, and so on…

    So really we’re pissing in the wind, arguing only over choices between degrees of violation. Since we’ll accept this degree of violation, we’ll clearly accept the next degree. It’s a process with which we’re already engaged. We signed on. We gave it our stamp. Our signatures are literally on the illegal forms of the enemy, and we paid for them. On what grounds do we complain?

    • Not only that, but the Miller decision clearly recognized that the protection of the 2nd Amendment applies specifically (or perhaps only) to “weapons of war”. That decision permitted a ban on short barrel shotguns precisely because they had not been shown to be useful as military weapons. (Of course, that absence of evidence was because of malpractice of the citizen’s lawyer.)

Comments are closed.