In case you missed it, we wanted to share this editorial from the Baltimore Sun on the need for an assault weapons ban.
Key Point: “As delegates consider amendments that would limit Mr. O’Malley’s proposal on assault weapons, they should ask themselves this question: If the features common to these firearms are merely cosmetic, why has the military adopted them? They are not for hunting or target shooting or for defending one’s home from an intruder. They are for killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible, and there is no justification for having them in civilian life.”
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
8 comments:
"Comments closed" at the end says it all. Nobody there wants to show the pages and pages of proof that everything in the article is pure propaganda.
We as citizens need our guns now more than ever, the government is running amuck and a civil war is coming folks, buy bullets, buy guns, stockpile water, buy gold, this summer with gas at $5.00 a gallon and food stamp money running out, your going to see I am right. The government is buy ammo at an alarming rate, they know we will fight them, 400 million gun owners in the USA, we got them outnumbered, we can take back our country and install people to do our bidding and not the special intrests!
my ar10 is perfect for deer, been using it the past 3 years.
Civilian AR's are not FULLY AUTOMATIC like police and military.
Big distinction in the Killing machine propaganda.
Again, if cops want to give up their guns I will give up mine.
I want one for the same reason they have one. Personal protection, yet they have the advantage of full auto?
HEY liberals, Where is your fairness mantra now?
what part dont these liberals get its not for hunting its for use against the government when they try to take all!!
\
MSL
Stupid liberals talking about things they have no clue about. The more I read the more I laugh .
I'm waiting for the first shot to be fired in that battle.
He IS right. they ARE for "...killing as many people as possible...". No of us are arguing THAT point. The point of contention is that we need them for protecting US against THEM. And there are a LOT of them. With a LOT of armed thug muscle with the latest in weaponry. If Jefferson was correct, and he seemed to know his stuff, then "we, the people" need to be able to possess weapons that actually allow citizens the chance to change things (after voting has been shown to be useless). A citizenry limited by bolt action rifles and single shot shotguns ain't gonna resist long against automatic weapons. THAT'S the whole deal right there about the Second Amendment. QUIT talking about "hunting". Please. It has NOTHING to do with hunting....animals.
Post a Comment