--------------------
I see a serious problem with semi-automatic imitation assault rifles. (Notice he sees a "serious problem." Let's see how serious it is and why.)
I think that many of these rifle owners have visions of being like Rambo when trouble happens, (He thinks, without evidence, that many people who own guns that look menacing are delusional.)
and that means (That is, his conclusion drawn from baseless supposition.)
thoughtless, careless, kneejerk reactions, with excess lead flying all over the place, and the shooter’s house turning into a gazebo.(Get it? People with scary looking guns are prone to be thoughtless, careless, and are shooting everything in sight.)
He’d have bullets penetrating walls and being a danger to the entire neighborhood. (And he would be a menace to the neighborhood, a danger to himself and others. Because of the way his gun looks.)
I’m solidly pro-gun, but I have reasonable limits. (He uses the word "reasonable" as if he knows what reasonable is. Re-read his first paragraph again to see if he is indeed reasonable. But more to the point, why does he think his own "reasonable" limits translate in any way to what MUST be reasonable for others, and particularly, carrying the force of law?)
I believe we should be able to own guns for hunting, self defense, target shooting, or collections. (Here's the collective "we," which implies "you and I," but without a doubt he wants government to act. Leftists hide behind the word "we." It sounds so cooperative, so unifying, so consensus-building. But in actuality, the word "we" is leftist code-speak for "government." They use the word whenever they want to force people, using the power of government, to do something.)
We don’t need imitation assault rifles that excite the imaginations of Rambo-wannabe’s. (Remember, this is the "serious problem." Apparently there are Rambo-wannabes all over the place who have shot up their homes and neighborhoods, bare-chested and bellowing war cries. And because of this, "we" need "reasonable" restrictions which apparently include the way the gun looks.
I see a serious problem with semi-automatic imitation assault rifles. (Notice he sees a "serious problem." Let's see how serious it is and why.)
I think that many of these rifle owners have visions of being like Rambo when trouble happens, (He thinks, without evidence, that many people who own guns that look menacing are delusional.)
and that means (That is, his conclusion drawn from baseless supposition.)
thoughtless, careless, kneejerk reactions, with excess lead flying all over the place, and the shooter’s house turning into a gazebo.(Get it? People with scary looking guns are prone to be thoughtless, careless, and are shooting everything in sight.)
He’d have bullets penetrating walls and being a danger to the entire neighborhood. (And he would be a menace to the neighborhood, a danger to himself and others. Because of the way his gun looks.)
I’m solidly pro-gun, but I have reasonable limits. (He uses the word "reasonable" as if he knows what reasonable is. Re-read his first paragraph again to see if he is indeed reasonable. But more to the point, why does he think his own "reasonable" limits translate in any way to what MUST be reasonable for others, and particularly, carrying the force of law?)
I believe we should be able to own guns for hunting, self defense, target shooting, or collections. (Here's the collective "we," which implies "you and I," but without a doubt he wants government to act. Leftists hide behind the word "we." It sounds so cooperative, so unifying, so consensus-building. But in actuality, the word "we" is leftist code-speak for "government." They use the word whenever they want to force people, using the power of government, to do something.)
We don’t need imitation assault rifles that excite the imaginations of Rambo-wannabe’s. (Remember, this is the "serious problem." Apparently there are Rambo-wannabes all over the place who have shot up their homes and neighborhoods, bare-chested and bellowing war cries. And because of this, "we" need "reasonable" restrictions which apparently include the way the gun looks.
As I noted in other posts, the Left loves to pretend like today is a new day, nothing has happened in the past, and everything they're proposing is to respond to a crisis that has never been addressed before. In this case, apparently we have absolutely no gun restrictions, and people are so caught up in Rambo-like personas that they're rampaging through the streets with ammo belts draped across their chest. This is a "serious problem.")
Shotguns used for hunting are more than adequate for home defense, and their BBs are less likely to go through the walls. Neighbors will be safer. (We are in danger! Who knows when your neighbor might snap. He has a mean-looking gun, and he might shoot it through his wall and kill you! "We" must do something, and it must be done right now! It's for the chillun!)
Shotguns used for hunting are more than adequate for home defense, and their BBs are less likely to go through the walls. Neighbors will be safer. (We are in danger! Who knows when your neighbor might snap. He has a mean-looking gun, and he might shoot it through his wall and kill you! "We" must do something, and it must be done right now! It's for the chillun!)
Then we have the paranoid (Whoa. After citing the danger of wildmen running the streets, did he really just use the word "paranoid?")
who rationalizes criminals have immense firepower and he’s got to be equal when (not if) heavily armed criminals show up on his doorstep. (As is typical for the Left, they are uncomfortable with people choosing for themselves how they will live their lives. The Left has its own ideas on what other people "should" do, and they are more than happy to to assume the "we" and bring the weight of government coercion upon people who might might be making"wrong" choices otherwise.)
He claims he’s justified since the police aren’t immediately available. (This "claim" doesn't get refuted, only poo-pooed. Apparently Mr Smalley is unaware that the police are under no obligation to respond.)
If you’re a drug dealer or involved in criminal activity, I can understand but not condone your desire to be well armed. (Whoa again. Two sentences ago Mr. Smalley dismissed the idea that criminals "have immense firepower." Now he concedes that criminals understandably want immense firepower. So which is it, Mr. Smalley?)
But the rest of us honest souls don’t need that kind of firepower. (Mr. Smalley negates his prior point entirely. He seems to believe that criminals wanting superior firepower is reasonable, but law-abiding citizens wanting the same is foolish, risky, and should be illegal. And he presumes to know what "we" need.)
When did some heavily armed criminal last show up on anybody’s doorstep? (Mr. Smalley opened his letter with a spectacular strawman scenario about Rambo-wannabes, but now claims that heavily-armed criminals do not show up at peoples' houses to commit crimes. In Mr. Smalley's pink rainbow universe, there has never been a case of a heavily armed criminal committing a crime, so there is no justification for someone owning anything more than a shotgun.
Except the police, apparently. Police carry guns like these
even though there are no heavily-armed criminals. One must ask, then, why should the police carry heavy weaponry to match up with criminals who do not arm themselves?)
This rationale doesn’t hold up, and shows people will say anything just to keep their toys. (After stumbling all over the processes of logical thought, Mr. Smalley somehow believes he has trumped the position of his ideological adversaries. And note the tacit admission that he does indeed want government to take away our guns.)
Along the line of saying anything to do what you want to do is the fellow who fears our government is so unstable, it’s on the verge of collapse and will turn oppressive against its citizens. Ergo, citizens must arm themselves with imitation assault rifles and be ready. (Whether this is true or not, it does not speak to the ownership of scary guns. But more to the point, government has been oppressive many times in its 200+ years of existence. It has perpetrated many injustices against its own citizenry. To this day it believes that it can kill US citizens without a trial. I'd say there is ample reason to believe that government could show up on your doorstep, heavily armed and believing it does not need a search warrant.) You can also arm yourself with fully automatic machine guns, but you must first prove to the government that you aren’t nuts. Enough said.
Vern G. Smalley Bozeman
Along the line of saying anything to do what you want to do is the fellow who fears our government is so unstable, it’s on the verge of collapse and will turn oppressive against its citizens. Ergo, citizens must arm themselves with imitation assault rifles and be ready. (Whether this is true or not, it does not speak to the ownership of scary guns. But more to the point, government has been oppressive many times in its 200+ years of existence. It has perpetrated many injustices against its own citizenry. To this day it believes that it can kill US citizens without a trial. I'd say there is ample reason to believe that government could show up on your doorstep, heavily armed and believing it does not need a search warrant.) You can also arm yourself with fully automatic machine guns, but you must first prove to the government that you aren’t nuts. Enough said.
Vern G. Smalley Bozeman
No comments:
Post a Comment