skorpion
02-28-2013, 07:31 AM
I just read this article on Fox:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/28/democrats-push-for-assault-weapons-ban-in-congress-but-it-still-faces-uphill/
Democrats have begun an all-out push to move a new assault weapons ban through Congress. But it faces strong headwinds from House Republicans, Democrats in pro-gun rights states and many legislatures in western and southern states who are moving in a different direction to ease gun control, rather than strengthen it.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by the bill's author, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, heard emotional testimony Wednesday from a witness list stacked with pro-ban speakers -- none more powerful than Neil Heslin of Newtown, Conn., whose son Jesse, was killed in the elementary school massacre. He pointed to his forehead and told the hushed hearing panel about the bullet that struck just below Jesse's hairline.
The anti-Americans are pushing for the next battle in the civilian disarmament war. Not only are they still using the Sandy Hook murder victims as emotional fodder, but they are now playing with the Heller decision (can't ban common firearms) by coining a couple of new idiotic phrases:
- "Dangerous and unusual weapons"
- "Excess-capacity magazines"
A couple of thoughts: Is there such a thing as a weapon that isn't dangerous? If an item is not inherently dangerous, can it be even be considered a weapon? And if something is intended to be used as a weapon, what's the point if it isn't dangerous? With the Democraps' new phrase, "unusual weapons," I picture improvised weapons and booby traps, not firearms. Last time I checked, firearms are not unusual.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/28/democrats-push-for-assault-weapons-ban-in-congress-but-it-still-faces-uphill/
Democrats have begun an all-out push to move a new assault weapons ban through Congress. But it faces strong headwinds from House Republicans, Democrats in pro-gun rights states and many legislatures in western and southern states who are moving in a different direction to ease gun control, rather than strengthen it.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by the bill's author, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, heard emotional testimony Wednesday from a witness list stacked with pro-ban speakers -- none more powerful than Neil Heslin of Newtown, Conn., whose son Jesse, was killed in the elementary school massacre. He pointed to his forehead and told the hushed hearing panel about the bullet that struck just below Jesse's hairline.
The anti-Americans are pushing for the next battle in the civilian disarmament war. Not only are they still using the Sandy Hook murder victims as emotional fodder, but they are now playing with the Heller decision (can't ban common firearms) by coining a couple of new idiotic phrases:
- "Dangerous and unusual weapons"
- "Excess-capacity magazines"
A couple of thoughts: Is there such a thing as a weapon that isn't dangerous? If an item is not inherently dangerous, can it be even be considered a weapon? And if something is intended to be used as a weapon, what's the point if it isn't dangerous? With the Democraps' new phrase, "unusual weapons," I picture improvised weapons and booby traps, not firearms. Last time I checked, firearms are not unusual.