As if we didn’t already know…

…the Democratic National Party has officially stated in its platform statement that they wish to reinstate the assault weapons ban.  It’s on page 43 (48 of the pdf), line 17 if you don’t believe me or just wish to read their whole sheeple-minded statement (and in my opinion, outright lies… “we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms….”…my ass they will) concerning firearms.  I am downright scared of them getting into power come November, and I’m not afraid to say it.  Not that McCain is much better, mind you, but I don’t believe I have to worry [too much] about another “assault weapons ban” with him.

Catch you on the flip side.  Keep your powder dry.

Advertisements

2 Responses

  1. Check your history books here, both Bush Presidents did their part to limit the same rifles that were banned by Clinton. On July 7th, 1989 various military style rifles were banned from importation by the Secretary of the Treasury under the Presidency of GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH. Bush banned ALL NORINCO (fire arm) imports in 2003. All Clinton did was disallow the purchase or sell, did not take away, rifles that did not meet the 10 or less or had over 10 round mags, the onese purchased before the law was enacted were still legal to own. 10 rounds is plenty with the trusty old m1 or sks or enfield. Simple solution to this was, carry more magazines.

  2. Hmm… spoken like a truly dedicated democrat sheeple. Let’s see, wadda we got here?

    “Check your history books here, both Bush Presidents did their part to limit the same rifles that were banned by Clinton.”

    Point? Did you see me saying that the Bush presidencies were awesome for firearms owners? Didn’t think so. I think the last president we had that was truly a firearms enthusiast was Teddy Roosevelt… but then again, I already blogged about him a while back.

    “All Clinton did was disallow the purchase or sell, did not take away, rifles that did not meet the 10 or less or had over 10 round mags, the onese purchased before the law was enacted were still legal to own.”

    Oh, is that all? Well then, shoot, I guess that wasn’t so bad, right? After all, who really needs more than 10 rounds in any semiautomatic firearm, right? Oh… wait… you know who doesn’t follow those laws? CRIMINALS! If homey (or whitey, to prove that I’m an equal opportunity hater) back on the block is walking around with his Glock and a 17-round magazine, why should I be limited to just 10 rounds with which I might need to defend myself?

    “10 rounds is plenty with the trusty old m1 or sks or enfield.”

    What about my buddy’s AR-15 or FAL or AK-47? All military rifles, my friend (I had a converted AR-15 issued to me in AIT, so don’t tell me it’s not an issue weapon). Again, why should I be limited to shooting an “old m1 or sks or enfield” as my “battle” rifle? And who are you to determine that 10 rounds is plenty?

    “Simple solution to this was, carry more magazines.”

    Because that doesn’t add bulk and weight to my loadout or anything, be it for concealed carry or for competition. The extra space needed to carry an extra magazine just to offset the fact that I am limited to 10-rounders is not always an option.

    Now, don’t let it be said that Ryan A. Horst doesn’t let the sheeple post comments on his blog. Have a great day, everyone.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: