The New York Times (wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC) recently allowed an op-ed where they "admit that “assault weapon” is a made up term created by anti-gun Democrats to scare low information voters. Stunningly they also admit there’s no proof the “assault weapons” ban had any impact on crime".

New York Times Finally Admits

What’s next? I bet they tell us Hillary habitually lies whenever her mouth moves. What are the chances?

Originally Posted by Guest

The New York Times (wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC) recently allowed an op-ed where they "admit that “assault weapon” is a made up term created by anti-gun Democrats to scare low information voters. Stunningly they also admit there’s no proof the “assault weapons” ban had any impact on crime".

New York Times Finally Admits

What’s next? I bet they tell us Hillary habitually lies whenever her mouth moves. What are the chances?

What's the world coming to, when they start admitting their errors?

Originally Posted by Guest

What's the world coming to, when they start admitting their errors?

Errors? More like finally admitting to their habitual publishing of propaganda.

The New York Times (wholly-owned subsidiary of the DNC) returned to normal after a brief flirtation with the practice of journalism wherein they admitted that their 30 year crusade against assault weapons was total BS.

The times had a recent article designed to excuse Obama’s callous disregard of the public’s reaction to his administration after the terrorist attacks in San Bernadino. The article contained the following passage: “In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments. Republicans were telling Americans that he is not doing anything when he is doing a lot, he said”.

Officials at the times quickly realized that this made Dear Leader appear to be out of touch, wrapped in a bubble and a hopeless ideologue. Of course he is all of those things but actually reporting his own words to prove it was not permitted at the Paper of Record. That paragraph has quietly been removed from subsequent editions of the article.

Order restored. A fine left wing Democrat move.

Originally Posted by Guest

The New York Times (wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC) recently allowed an op-ed where they "admit that “assault weapon” is a made up term created by anti-gun Democrats to scare low information voters. Stunningly they also admit there’s no proof the “assault weapons” ban had any impact on crime".

New York Times Finally Admits

What’s next? I bet they tell us Hillary habitually lies whenever her mouth moves. What are the chances?

Generally speaking my prayer is that this is a harbinger of better things to come. Specifically the news media digitally and in print has lost credibility. The average citizen depends on the objective and thoroughly vetted and truthfulness of the press. Frankly many citizens don't believe anything they hear or read anymore and from anyone and that is disastrous for a viable democracy to thrive.

Perhaps as Democrats are fond of saying the chickens have come home to roost? Hope so


Personal Best Regards:
Personal Best Regards:

Just another example of word-playing by the NRA inspired crowd.

As the general populace knows and understands, the AR-15 and similar style rifles are look alikes for the M-16 which are assault rifles. Basic difference is the selector that allows for full automatic instead of one shot per trigger squeeze.

However, remember, the San Bernadino shooters used AR-15's to rapidly kill 14 people.

Assault rifle or look alike - same deadly result for those workers at a Christmas party, wasn't it?

Originally Posted by Guest

Just another example of word-playing by the NRA inspired crowd.

As the general populace knows and understands, the AR-15 and similar style rifles are look alikes for the M-16 which are assault rifles. Basic difference is the selector that allows for full automatic instead of one shot per trigger squeeze.

However, remember, the San Bernadino shooters used AR-15's to rapidly kill 14 people.

Assault rifle or look alike - same deadly result for those workers at a Christmas party, wasn't it?

When it comes to the killing of a large number of unarmed people gathered in a confined space, it probable makes little difference as to the type of firearm used.

Originally Posted by Guest

When it comes to the killing of a large number of unarmed people gathered in a confined space, it probable makes little difference as to the type of firearm used.

The only firearm in existence at the time of the Bill of Rights was a single shot musket or single shot pistol.

The writers of the Bill of Rights had no concept of semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines.

The well-regulated militia is completely different from every yahoo being allowed to own as many semi-automatic rifles, high capacity magazines, and unlimited ammunition as they can obtain.

Originally Posted by Guest

The only firearm in existence at the time of the Bill of Rights was a single shot musket or single shot pistol.

The writers of the Bill of Rights had no concept of semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines.

The well-regulated militia is completely different from every yahoo being allowed to own as many semi-automatic rifles, high capacity magazines, and unlimited ammunition as they can obtain.

Thanks for the history lesson and your opinion on current firearm ownership.

Originally Posted by Guest

The only firearm in existence at the time of the Bill of Rights was a single shot musket or single shot pistol.

The writers of the Bill of Rights had no concept of semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines.

The well-regulated militia is completely different from every yahoo being allowed to own as many semi-automatic rifles, high capacity magazines, and unlimited ammunition as they can obtain.

The musket was a better weapon than bows and arrows and tomahawks at that time. The equivalent of today's "assault" weapon.

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." - Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

Originally Posted by Guest

The only firearm in existence at the time of the Bill of Rights was a single shot musket or single shot pistol.

The writers of the Bill of Rights had no concept of semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines.

The well-regulated militia is completely different from every yahoo being allowed to own as many semi-automatic rifles, high capacity magazines, and unlimited ammunition as they can obtain.

A 100,000 legal gun owners did NOT kill anyone this year.
How many doctors killed someone this year with a knife?
How many drivers killed someone with a car?
My guns are safe. They didn't kill anyone this year.

Blah, blah, blah and blah. If you can't get over your unfounded fear of gun owners, you really should see a therapist. And then you can worry about whether or not they will hook you on and eventually kill you with their prescription drugs.

Originally Posted by Guest

The only firearm in existence at the time of the Bill of Rights was a single shot musket or single shot pistol.

The writers of the Bill of Rights had no concept of semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines.

The well-regulated militia is completely different from every yahoo being allowed to own as many semi-automatic rifles, high capacity magazines, and unlimited ammunition as they can obtain.

Dear Guest: Nice try but you ignore the intent of the 2nd Amendment as written by the founders. During the Protestant Reformation the protestant population was beginning to grow and the Catholic Monarch attempted to control this growth and maintain his power. and because he controlled the armies and had more weapons the fight was long and bloody, which ended in the creation of the English Bill of Rights.

The Founders adopted language from the English Bill of Rights of which the 2nd amendment was written to protect the colonies from King George. Th3 2nd amendment made clear that towns could form militia bear arms in defense of........................ They may have had muskets but they also had cannons and the intent was whether musket or pitch fork we are ready to defend the Republic

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

The only firearm in existence at the time of the Bill of Rights was a single shot musket or single shot pistol.

The writers of the Bill of Rights had no concept of semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines.

The well-regulated militia is completely different from every yahoo being allowed to own as many semi-automatic rifles, high capacity magazines, and unlimited ammunition as they can obtain.

Since the yahoos seem to think that the Constitution is NOT a living document and therefore is to be carried out as written: the only firearm in existence at that time was the single shot pistol or musket - that is the only weapon that should be allowed for the general public.

IF the shooters burst in the Christmas party with single shot pistols or muskets, they certainly could have been overpowered after getting off their one shot before reloading.

This IS sensible gun control!

Originally Posted by Guest

Since the yahoos seem to think that the Constitution is NOT a living document and therefore is to be carried out as written: the only firearm in existence at that time was the single shot pistol or musket - that is the only weapon that should be allowed for the general public.

IF the shooters burst in the Christmas party with single shot pistols or muskets, they certainly could have been overpowered after getting off their one shot before reloading.

This IS sensible gun control!

Then, by your distorted reasoning the First Amendment should not apply to the internet, television, nor radio, since none of them existed when the First Amendment was written. Or do you liberals just pick and choose which amendments apply and when.

Originally Posted by Guest

Since the yahoos seem to think that the Constitution is NOT a living document and therefore is to be carried out as written: the only firearm in existence at that time was the single shot pistol or musket - that is the only weapon that should be allowed for the general public.

IF the shooters burst in the Christmas party with single shot pistols or muskets, they certainly could have been overpowered after getting off their one shot before reloading.

This IS sensible gun control!

You need some serious help. I do not believe that you actually subscribe to your stupid rhetoric. Show me in the constitution where it stipulated any/ANY limitation on weapons at all. Go ahead, find it for me. You probably have never even scanned over it, let alone read it. In those days, muskets may have been a starter for defending your town, but not the country. Hunting rifles are a starter but not even close to adequate to defend a town, let alone a country.

"Sensible gun control" is controlled breathing, sight alignment, and squeeze, don't jerk the trigger. I won't diss' you for being scared of guns, but my daughter shoots in competition and my grandson (11) just got his first 10 point buck this year. So, you really shouldn't be scared of them. With the proper training, you can handle one safely and confidently too.