| And the Un-Masking of Mitt Romney, the left-wing, Progressive Liberal, continues . . . | |
| "If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton |  |
I’d love to corner him and ask him to describe an assault rifle.
Assault weapons ARE made for self defense!!
They are useful when heavily outnumbered in riot-type situations. Ask the Koreans who defended their businesses against massive numbers of arsonists rioters in the LA riots of 1992.
I’m sure this has been brought up a billion times on FR, but I’ve never been sure what distinguishes an “assualt weapon” from other weapons. Perhaps as opposed to a “love pat weapon”?
>>They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people
Yes, they are. Thanks for recognizing that fact. Since there are about a million human attacks in US for every bear attack, I’m glad that we have anti-human guns at our disposal in the free states!
You should have voted for Newt. You know who you are.
Assault weapons are great for preventing tyranny.
Say what you want about Romney. He was a Governor of a Liberal State. Being an elected official does not mean that you impose your will upon the electorate. It means you represent the electorate and protect the vulnerable. It was MA’s will he was enacting to a very large degree. He was solving their problems not the Nation’s.
“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
So much is wrong with these sentences, but let me snipe a couple of points:
1. Wouldn’t it be easier to use a hunting rifle to hunt down and kill people? I mean, if that’s what they use to kill deer and such, there must be good reason (besides the law). I’m thinking “assualt weapons” usually aren’t the most accurate.
2. What’s with this “hunting down” presumption? Couldn’t man killers just as easily lie in ambush? Let them come to you; it’s less work (though more boring).
3. In the spirit of point two, why presume people are using “assault weapons” offensively? They work the same if you’re the one being assaulted; they’re neutral that way. You can’t assume the one with the AK is going out looking for trouble just because you named them “assualt weapons” instead of “defense weapons.”
4. Even in wars, where men are allowed not only to use “assualt weapons,” but can legally hunt down and kill their enemies, they don’t get many assualt weapon kills. Why? Because it’s hard to kill things with them. Mostly they’re used for suppressing fire. The majority of deaths come from ordnance, which blows stuff up indiscriminately.
“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
Don’t know about you, Mitt, but I’d much rather have the same or better firepower than the dirtbag scum who decides to accost me, my family, or my property. And, please define “assault weapon” for the great unwashed masses, you nitwit RINO.