Whenever there is a shooting or a terrorist attack, Democrat lefties immediately seize on the tragedy, seemingly before the bodies are cleared, in order to ride their favorite political hobby horse of gun confiscation, or as they like to more gently refer to it, gun control. There seems to be a complete logic disconnect as they suggest that taking guns away from ordinary citizens is going to make everyone safer when the bad guys or the terrorists come to shoot them. How will unarmed citizens be safer under those circumstances?
There is, in fact, ample evidence that arming the public will do more to advance the safety of society than even a huge increase in police might would. Police cannot be everywhere at every moment, but an armed populace, especially one with hidden weapons, is a tremendous deterrent to bad guys since they have no idea who is armed or where they may be. And it certainly does not require arming every person in a crowd. The unknown factor of who might or might not be packing a nine millimeter pistol keeps the baddies guessing.
The evidence for this proposition is that most or all of the recent mass shootings have taken place in “gun free zones,” meaning zones designated to be free of guns. And they were, except for the bad guy or guys, who somehow missed the rule and so were able to mow down countless unarmed and defenseless citizens.
Another arrogant, anti-gun “progressive,” in this case a law professor by the name of David Cohen, has rushed to print anti-American propaganda in Rolling Stone magazine. While there may be as many as a dozen people who still actually read the magazine, it might still be instructive to broaden the reach of his musings and review some of the good professors points in this article.
Read anti-gun arguments on page 2:
uh, yeah. i am constantly being dumbfounded by people who DO NOT understand their history or their constitution. once one falls, all our rights will fall. as long as these dumbasses have the newest i-phone or tech gadget they care not what happens.
Just when I thought RS couldn’t become any more irrelevant or a waste of paper. Wow. How far it has fallen. Someone needs to put it out of it’s misery.
CNN now we know for sure who you people are…………
Useless idiots.
Idiots
Nope i think we”ll keep it !!!!!!!!
Nope it’s time to repeal the ignorant politicians who believe this ignorance. And that day is coming this year. Time to vote out all politicians in congress who haven’t done a damn thing for the people or this country.
Bahaha! Good luck with that!
It is time to boycott CNN!
I copied this from another post.
——————————-
Ok. I’m going to have to fix a few people on here because emotions are high and stupid$#%&!@*is being supported.
First off, most of you have no clue what an assault rifle is! It’s not your fault you don’t know, I will educate you. An assault rifle is a rifle with the ability to go fully automatic. That means if you hold the trigger down, it keeps going bang until you release the trigger or the weapon runs out of ammo. The first assault rifle came about during WWII with the German Stg44. It had the power of a rifle with nearly the rate of fire of a sub-machine gun (full auto). Inspired out of this WWII era gun came the most well knows assault rifles of all time, the AK-47 and the M-16. Both had the ability for fully automatic fire. When people say they want a ban on assault weapons they think they are banning fully automatic rifles from civilian hands. The problem is that these weapons are ALREADY BANNED! See National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearm Ownership Protection Act of 1986. Civilians cannot obtain these weapons. They are for military and police use almost exclusively.
So what is this AR-15 if not an assault rifle? It is a standard rifle that LOOKS LIKE a fully automatic M-16, but does not function like one. It does the same thing as any other standard rifle. One trigger pull = one bang. Most of you are not stupid enough to want to ban a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle (pictured on top), but cry that the AR-15 (pictured on bottom) is a deadly assault rifle when they are literally capable of the same thing. Same ammo, same capacity, same function. The aesthetic differences between the two are what some want to ban and have banned in the past, which if you look at them, are pants-on-head-retarded to consider deadly features. Some of the things that made a standard functioning rifle considered an assault weapon are:
A folding or telescoping stock – (does not make the weapon any deadlier).
A pistol grip – (does not make the weapon any deadlier).
A bayonet mount – (does not make the weapon any deadlier).
A flash suppressor – (does not make the weapon any deadlier).
You see what I’m getting at? The weapons you actually want banned are ALREADY BANNED. The weapons used in these attacks are regular functioning rifles designed to look like their full auto, military counterparts.
So if the AR-15 isn’t more dangerous than any other standard rifle, then why is is the one being used in all of these shootings? Simple. It just happens to be the most popular rifle in the country. It’s the iPhone of rifles. It is an affordable, accurate rifle that is easy to personalize because everyone makes accessories for it. It isn’t any easier to acquire than other rifles, just more available.
To wrap this up, If you support banning fully automatic assault rifles, fine. You support a law that is already in place for good reason. I agree we generally don’t need machine guns. However, if you think we should ban standard functioning rifles because of things like how you hold the grip or how adjustable the buttstock is, you are an idiot!
Consider yourselves educated on this matter.