Likely missing a dictionary and basic common sense, Erica Thomas still expects us to believe that the government isn’t coming for our guns.
During an interview with Tucker Carlson, Thomas claims to not be talking about “taking the guns from law-abiding citizens, I’m talking about a ban on assault rifles. We are not trying to promote a militia. What war are we going at that we need assault rifles?”
But Carlson quotes the bill Thomas herself said she supported, which states,
“The Georgia Bureau of Investigation shall seize and take possession of any assault weapon, large capacity magazine, armor piercing bullet or incendiary fifty caliber bullet.”
Carlson then asks how that confiscation will be received by hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners in her state and in typical democrat fashion, can’t answer what a “seizure” of guns from law-abiding citizens who don’t want to give up their morally acquired property would look like.
Then the conversation between Carlson and Thomas eventually drifted into gun statistics, and The Daily Caller co-founder wondered why Thomas wasn’t calling for a ban on handguns since they are responsible for the majority of gun deaths in America.
“Don’t demagogue it with me. I am not downplaying the significance of anyone’s death,” Carlson asserted.“Since assault rifles, relatively speaking, cause few deaths, handguns cause the overwhelming majority of deaths, why are you not calling for banning handguns and seizing and taking possession of handguns…if you care so much about gun violence?”
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
1 comment:
Why do they keep using the term "assault rifle"? A semi-auto anything is NOT an assault anything. There are loads of semi-auto hunting rifles that can and do cause the same and MORE damage than the AR-15 they keep harping about.
Even IF they could accomplish what they seek, confiscate all firearms, does anyone really think violence would magically end? Hell no. The methods would change is all. There would be an increase in BOMBINGS, knife attacks(which are already high), Molotov cocktails, even baseball bats.
Restricting or banning access to any particular weapon would only force those people to utilize other weapons. Think of it as attacking the symptoms while the disease carries on.
Also, keep in mind that "they" don't care if you get killed with anything. "They" just want everyone disarmed from firearms so "they" can do whatever they want (and what they have already planned) to US with minimal resistance and damage to THEM.
I hope I have explained it well enough for everyone to understand and believe.
And anyone who is about to use the "tin-foil" rebuttal, don't bother. You may trust the gov't and those in power and falsely believe they would do you no harm and actually care about you, but that is not reality.
The only thing "they" care about is power, wealth, control, and how to keep those things. They will, and have, do anything, kill anyone, to achieve their goals. It really is that simple.
And as Forrest Gump would say, 'that's all I have to say about that'.
Post a Comment