Outlaw Assault Magazines
Nan alluded to, if “Assault
Magazines” were outlawed the massacre at Newtown wouldn’t have occered.
By de Andréa
December 20, 2012
Now I don’t know what mental
institution Nancy Pelosi escaped from or what she means by “Assault Magazines”,
surly she doesn’t mean the Saturday Evening Post, I don’t think that is an
assault magazine. Maybe she means the
magazine published by the NRA. And then,
how would one assault someone with a magazine anyway?
Yes you read that correctly. Nancy Pelosi used the term assault magazines
in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell in talking about how the kind of
firepower used in the Sandy Hook
Elementary School
shootings should be outlawed. And if
those high capacity magazines were Illegal would the shooter have said to
himself, “these magazines are illegal, so I guess I will not go to the school
and kill a bunch of kids today”. Oh Yeah!
Even some guns I own myself are
considered by the left to be “assault weapons.” I have not cared what people have called them
in the past, to be honest, that does not make them anymore or less dangerous
than any other gun.
However, in reading a piece by Jan Morgan, I think I’m going to stop referring
to them as such. Here’s what Morgan
writes:
My AR is not an assault rifle.
It is not an assault weapon.
It will never be used to criminally assault anyone.
My AR will only be used for defensive and sporting purposes.
It is simply a modern musket.
It is not an assault weapon.
It will never be used to criminally assault anyone.
My AR will only be used for defensive and sporting purposes.
It is simply a modern musket.
“1. An attack or violent onset, whether
by an individual, a company, or an army.
An assault by private persons may be made with or without weapons. As assault by an army is a violent hostile
attack; and when made upon a fort or fortified place is called a storm, as
opposed to sap or siege.
2. An attack by hostile words or
measures; as, an assault upon the prerogatives of a prince, or upon a
constitution of government.
3. In Law, an unlawful setting upon
one’s person; an attempt or offer to beat another, without touching his person;
as by lifting the fist or a cane, in a threatening manner. If the blow aimed takes effect, it is a
battery.
So Morgan is correct. My weapons, and I’m sure many of yours, will
never be used to criminally assault anyone.
In fact, if we were to use the term “assault weapon,” it could literally
be applied to anything; a baseball bat, knife, pencil, barbed wire, or even a car!”
However, Pelosi moves the argument up a
notch. Now she is not even calling for a
ban on what she wrongly calls “assault weapons,” but is calling
for “assault
magazines” to be outlawed!
She told Mitchell on Tuesday:
“How does something like this happen? Because a person with impaired judgment had
access to firepower that should be outlawed.
There is no reason why these assault magazines – and that’s what they
are. We’ve got to call them what they
are, assault magazines. You aren’t even
allowed to have that on a hunting gun in California ,
which has three shots.” Pelosi thinks the fire-power
originates with the magazine. It is
doubtful Nan even knows what a magazine is much
less which end of the gun the bullet comes out of. Yes Nancy Pelosi should be banned from coming
within 1000 feet of a gun. And Nancy ’…hunting rifles in California have a minimum of 5 rounds not
3…a 3 round magazine wouldn’t even be worth manufacturing.
What the heck is an assault magazine
anyway? Are people with AR-15s and
AK-47s now throwing their fully loaded magazines at people? This is so far over the top it’s rather
difficult to take seriously, but we must because these are the mentally
disabled people that are framing the argument, and if we do not correct the
misuse of language, then we will inevitably lose the argument and the fight
over our rights and freedom.
That being said, I’ll remind Pelosi and
the rest of the ignorant communists that the Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever
to do with hunting.
“A well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free
state , the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.”
Since the Supreme Court has ruled
that this right applies to individuals and since the Amendment begins by
defining the purpose for the right to keep and bear arms is with regards to a
“well regulated militia and the security of a free State, not hunting, so the
reference to hunting is irrelevant. The
problem comes for both the courts and the Congress with that nagging little bit
at the end, “Shall not be infringed.”
This is the beginning point of where the liberals start. Our voices must be loud in pointing that out.
Thanks for listening – de Andréa
1 comment:
[url=http://jlyfsh.co/1efb][b]ugg boots outlet[/b][/url] FTOJUK
[url=http://7me.de/eaz][b]cheap ugg[/b][/url] BRWRSQ
[url=http://bizz.mx/bbhv][b]sale uggs[/b][/url] MNKIUO
[url=http://wizrd.tk/8u][b]cheap uggs boots[/b][/url] HKKNEE
[url=http://schwurbel.net/qh][b]ugg boots sale[/b][/url] IOFKEI
Post a Comment