Another Gun Grabbing Pile of Puke

No wonder I don't read much of the local papers. As the election season gets cranking, the hysterical shrieks and screams from these leftist rags is almost unbearable. When I have to wade through five paragraphs of advertising for the Donks before I find any real information in a news article, I know that it's going to be a rough year. Reading the op-ed pages drops a RCOB over my eyes. Today is no different. Guess what today's is? Oh hell, I'll tell you - It's yet another leftist bullshit screed on guns.

The clock is running out on a 10-year-old federal ban on certain types of semiautomatic assault weapons. Without bold action by President Bush, the common-sense law likely will expire in September.

Common sense law? Please, there's no common sense about it! "OOOOOO, IT'S A BAYONET LUG! EEEK! EEEK!" I'll bet ten dollars that the editors of this fishwrap wouldn't even be able to tell me what makes a weapon an "assault" weapon. They're just spewing out the liberal line, like they always do.

Bush has said he will sign a bill to extend the ban ? if Congress approves one. But that's unlikely without his strong backing, and he knows it.

Because he knows that if he ever signed an extention on to the ban, he'd never see the Oval Office again. Gun control is a loosing issue these days.

A strong majority of Americans support the ban on the manufacture, transfer and possession of 19 types of assault weapons, such as the AK-47, the Uzi and the TEC-9. So do the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Education Association, the American Bar Association and many other organizations. They support it because it makes sense.

A "strong majority of Americans"? Bullshit. If a strong majority of Americans supported the ban, then it would be renewed. A strong majority of Americans has seen that this ban is nothing but bullshit that restricts the rights of law-abiding Americans and does nothing to improve life in this country. And let's look at the groups supporting it, shall we? National League of Cities? Hard Left. US Conference of Mayors? I honestly don't know what their politics are, but if they're joining these other groups, I have a damn good guess. NEA? Might as well be Stalin's Cheerleaders. ABA? Practically in the pocket of the Donks. Great group of supporters there, fellas!

Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske is one of hundreds of law-enforcement leaders who back the ban. He says such weapons serve no legitimate purpose for people who aren't police.

Kerlikowske is an asshat of the highest order, but as long as he toes the line of the brain-dead leftists here in Seattle, they treat him like a brother. Should he try to do something like, I don't know, uphold the law, they savage him without remorse. Don't get me started on the treatment of police in this town, or how Kerlikowske has let more than one officer hang because it was politically expedient for him to do so. Kerlikowske isn't fit to shine the shoes of our other prominent law enforcement official, Sheriff Dave Richart. And as for that statement of "no legitimate purpose"?

Since when do we let the government tell us what a "legitimate purpose" is? Hey, that gun has no legitimate purpose! Hey, that truck has no legitimate purpose! That dog has no legitimate purpose! What's next? "You have no legitimate purpose for that house! You have no legitimate purpose for ......." Fuck you, Kerlikowske. You want to know what the legitimate purpose for that gun is? So that when jackbooted fuckwits like yourself decide that people like me have "no legitimate purpose", I can dispute your findings!

He's right. These weapons aren't necessary for hunting or self-defense. They are for drug dealers, gang leaders and other criminals. They don't belong on America's streets.

Assualt weapons are for drug dealers and gang leaders? Wow, I didn't know that the police who use those weapons were gang leaders. I didn't know that the FBI was dealing drugs! Thanks for clearing that up for me! Am I being obtuse? Yes, but you cannot say that a weapon has no purpose when organizations all over the country use them.

In addition to banning 19 specific semiautomatic assault weapons, the 1994 legislation identifies specific characteristics that categorize a weapon as an "assault weapon." It also bans ammunition clips or magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. At the same time, it exempts hundreds of other weapons designed for legitimate uses.

I would like for any of these idiots to name more than one characteristic that defines an "assault weapon". Around here, they can't. They simply start frothing at the mouth and screaming about how evil I am. And how nice of them to acknowlege that weapons have legitimate uses! I'm surprised that actually got printed!

The ban isn't perfect. Manufacturers can too easily get around the law by altering their weapons. Still, the fight to keep the ban in place is worth it. And it will be a fight.

Read that second line: "Manufacturers can too easily get around the law by altering their weapons." If they alter their weapons to comply with the ban, then HOW IN G-D'S NAME ARE THEY GETTING AROUND IT? THEY'RE FOLLOWING THE LAW, YOU MORONIC ASSHOLES! And you're DAMN RIGHT it's going to be a fight, because the sane people in this country are tired of allowing a bunch of hoplophobic gun-grabbing socialists to push their agenda on the majority of Americans.

The National Rifle Association is actively opposing extension of the ban. Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay said there are not sufficient votes to reauthorize the law. A bill that would have protected gun manufacturers from lawsuits died in March when senators tried to include in the bill the extension of the assault-weapons ban.

Someone needs to clue these idiots in to the fact that the REASON there aren't enough votes to extend the ban is due to the fact that THE BAN DOES NOTHING TO HELP THIS COUNTRY! The ban was NEVER ABOUT PROTECTING PEOPLE, it was about exerting control over people's lives! If these twits actually cared about protecting people, they would start locking up murderers and rapists rather than letting then out of jail after a few years! They would put car thieves in jail instead of letting them go! But taking away guns from people is what they really care about.

If the ban expires Sept. 13, the country could once again manufacture and import these military-style weapons. We don't need them.

Correction: YOU don't WANT them. It has nothing to do with need. Tell a farmer living an hour away from any kind of emergency help that he doesn't need a 30 round clip, and he'll laugh at you. Tell me that I don't need a 30 round clip and I'LL laugh at you. The Second Amendment clearly states that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. If you want to start setting restrictions on that, let me start restricting what you can do at the newspaper. We'll see how understanding you are of "reasonable restrictions" and "common sense laws" then!

President Bush has said he supports the ban. It's time for him to start acting like it.

It's time for you to shut the fuck up and sit your worthless gun-grabbing socialist moonbat ass down, you miserable puke! The day President Bush takes advice from this worthless fishwrap is the day that I vote for the Libertarian candidate.

I'm going to steal the set of questions that Spoons had set out for the people of Chicago. These are questions that everyone should know the answer to, so that you can ask them to the various leftist groups around the country. If they can't answer these questions, then suggest to them that perhaps they should further their education in regards to firearms.

1 - What does the assault weapons ban, ban?

2 - Under what circumstances do you have to have a federal background check when you buy a gun at a gun show?

3 - Under what circumstances do you not have to have a federal background check when you buy a gun elsewhere than a gun show?

4 - Describe how the laws regarding federal background checks differ at gun shows, versus all other locations.

5 - How many U.S. states allow citizens to carry concealed weapons?

6 - How do the crime rates of states with concealed carry compare to the crime rates of states without concealed carry?

7 - How many states that have adopted concealed carry over the past ten years have seen their crime rates go up?

8 - How many have gone down?

See if you have the answers.