Dim Outlook For Gun Owners

From My Cold Sexy Hands! (Pic From 2 Day Blog)

Before Obama's website was purged of his controversial agenda, it mentioned that he would reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Despite needing a law degree to understand what the hell constitutes an "assault weapon", the media has already begun their culture war against lawful gun-owners labeling them red-state rubes with Napoleonic complexes. From NJ.com (h/t Crook's Shadow):
One further point - I'm inclined to believe that the vast bulk of folks buying guns per recent gun shop owners' claims are repeat buyers, they already have guns at home.

You can see it, can't you? The 'boys with their toys' using any excuse to do the old: "Hey, Honey, because (Obama was elected, a big snow is predicted, an old tree looks frail, any excuse for a new toy) I need to go down to the (gun shop, hardware store, etc.) and pick up a new (gun, snow blower, chain saw, whatever)."

I doubt there are many new buyers. So, again, this 'crisis' is of far less concern than the press makes it. It's really no big deal.
The Oboner media would obviously like American citizens to be uneducated serfs who will bow their head to whatever turd of an agenda Washington flushes our way. Fortunately, we have a second amendment to prevent such government encroachment. However, people with well-heard voices are offering up extremely creative interpretations of "the right to bear arms". Who knows what tomorrow will bring?


The Sniper said...

"I doubt there are many new buyers. So, again, this 'crisis' is of far less concern than the press makes it. It's really no big deal."

Ahhh, so just because this douchebag doubt it that means the "crisis" is negated in toto? WTF?!?! Since when did this assbag become the end all be all who can determine with absolute authority what is and what is not a crisis?

And the whole "You can see it, can't you?" is an exact quote from his MSNBC overlord Olbermann... another douche par excellance.

cathcatz said...

can you tell me why any american citizen, not active in the military, should need an assault weapon? seriously?

to kill police officers?

to kill other gang bangers?

for target practice?

for hunting?

they simply aren't necessary for sportsmen, but that's just my opinion. i'm all for responsible gun ownership, and the 2nd amendment is yet another hot-button issue used to sway the sheeple, much like abortion and gay marriage.

look at it this way. if roe wasn't overturned under this last neo-con administration, no future leftie loon democratic administration is going to come and take your precious bang bang toys.

smoke and mirrors.

LT Nixon said...


You don't think the 2nd amendment is an important issue? The ultimate "check and balance" against an unruly government that has gone too far. As for taking "bang bang toys", they seriously tried during the 90s, when the assault weapons ban was implemented, when the "Million Mom March" happened, editorials up the ying yang about how the 2nd amendment didn't apply to gun ownership, etc.

cathcatz said...

i think that political issues like "gays, god and guns" do nothing but rile up an uninformed electorate to vote, based on hot button issues out of fear. look back over your lifetime. what's really changed so drastically in those arenas? i feel that all of the amendments to the constitution are very important, just as is the constitution itself. it's one of the main reasons why i've had such a problem with the bush administrations total disregard for our civil rights. but i'm just some lefty loon, right?

again, why does ANY citizen need such firepower? i fully support a ban on assault weapons. they are for the military, not the "militia" whatever the fuck that is.

you didn't answer why anyone should need one?

oh, and why does this blogger format not allow you to be notified of a new reply??

LT Nixon said...

Aside from the fact that "assault" is oddly defined by whoever made this dumb law, what is wrong with an AR-15? It is not an automatic, just looks "scary" because the magazine is in front of the trigger. With creative interpretations of amendments, their intended purpose won't be around much longer. Click on the "email follow-up comments to xxx@xxx.com" in the pop-up box to get email notification.

cathcatz said...

but ya still didn't answer why any civilian should need such firepower.

Anonymous said...

He did answer your question: "The ultimate 'check and balance' against an unruly government that has gone too far."

That's the whole point of the second amendment.

Besides that, the AR-15 is great rifle and has many "sporting" uses as well. And as LT said, it only fires ONCE per trigger pull... the same as many wooden-stocked hunting rifles. It just LOOKS "bad".

(I know this is old, but it came up in a Google search and I wanted to respond.)