I’m jaded and frustrated about this whole gun thing. Folks use words that mean different things as if they are the same. Nobody seems interested in the basic debate premise, that would be an agreed upon definition of the starting point.
That said: OWB sent this along from here in WV:
Bumped from the comments – Exemplifies well the nearly bizarre nature of the process too much to miss.
Too many gun posts today, so I’ll just piggyback here. California’s Rep. Mike Thompson calls the “high capacity magazines” “assault magazines“. I guess the term worked so well to demonize the rifles, he wants to try it on magazines now. More emotion-inspiring bullshit.
Also bumped from the comments… a glimpse of reason:
I am trying to create a letter to send to my state and federal representatives. Here is a first draft, any comments?
Please oppose any legislation or regulations to confiscate firearms, ban firearms, register firearms, or anything that further complicates the existing regulatory environment with respect to firearms.
I am an Army veteran (1970 to 1976) who stood up for you, carried a weapon, and took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. No legitimate government would deprive me of the ability to defend myself, my family, and my country. Confiscation and bans tie my hands and reduce my ability; registration identifies law-abiding people for future confiscation and identifies weapons owners for criminal activity. These are not theoretical or rhetorical concerns, in my lifetime large modern countries have disarmed their populations. Millions died including nearly half a million from the US.
I will watch what you say and how you vote and act. If you betray my trust then you do not represent me, my family, or my country. We still have the ballot and I will donate $1,000 where I think that it will do the most good. Remember 1994.