Replies

It's the first time in a while that I have seen anything even resembling clever behavior from the gungrabbers. Trying to do a bit of divide-and-conquer on their part on wilderness issues certainly is an improvement over their usual nitwittery such as their labeling Florida the "Gunshine State" due to its move to more reasonable gunlaws over the years.

However, they are still very clumsy, such as this portion of their tripe:

... but I don't fret about the federal government breaking down my door to confiscate my battle worn 870 or my late grandfather's octagon-barrel 30-30, nor do I think all gun control laws, such as the ban on automatic assault rifles, are bad.

Notice how carefully they slimily babble on about how they are gunowners, too, and they have no worries about anyone taking their good guns --- just those evil semi-automatics in the assault weapons ban. That bit wasn't so clever on their part, since it is such a blatant line of blarney that most gunowners will pick up on it immediately.

I hope no one is taken in by these folks, but I imagine that there will be some good folks who don't pay a lot of attention to the issues who will be fooled by the AHSA.

I completely agree with your comments in #6. It scared me to see the gungrabbers using some intellect and strategy in their attacks on RKBA.

Fortunately they just can't quite help themselves from letting the mask slip and exposing who and what they are. Let's hope they don't figure that one out and find the discipline to stay hidden.

I have noticed from time to time some editorial or letter to the editor that would start with, "I am a hunter and a gun owner..." and ends with "but no one needs a military rifle that shoots hundreds of rounds a minute...semiautomatics have no legitimate sporting or hunting purpose...all I need is my shotgun and my bolt-action rifle."

I have seen a few such commentaries. The usual theme is to try and establish credibility with the reader - the author presents himself as some sort of gun expert. The next goal is to confuse full-auto (not that there is anything wrong with that) and semi-auto guns. Next, the commentary labels any "military" weapon as something no citizen should be allowed to own. Finally, the article argues that it is up to the government to determine what rights we "need" and by the way, the article will happily conclude that we really don't need much of anything. This is a very consistent formula I have noticed in articles and commentaries by certain "hunters."

It would be interesting to see who is funding and organizing this propaganda.

nor do I think all gun control laws, such as the ban on automatic assault rifles, are bad

Gun grabber in (poor) disguise!

"automatic"? "assault rifles"? What an idiot! I can't believe that any actual gun owner could be this ignorant. This is a Brady Bunch stalking horse.