Page 1 of 1
Posted on January 12 at 5:14 p.m.
Joe_Paycheck wrote:"...unfettered access to assault weapons..."
It shouldn't require much more than a room-temperature IQ to understand the idiocy of terms like 'assault weapon' and 'military-style.' Regarding the first, 'assault' is simply a deliberately provocative and pejorative term that does absolutely nothing to further classify 'weapon.' Regarding the second, it requires zero understanding of firearms to understand the absurdity of limiting or banning something because of its 'style.'
Click on the link below, and consider the bottom two images; this is the EXACT SAME GUN, the left with a wood stock, the right with a modern plastic composite stock and some other accessories....
It's a SIMPLE .22 RIFLE, which is about one step up from a BB gun — the type of rifle that 12-year olds have used to learn marksmanship in summer camp for decades. Yet, if shown a photo of the bottom right version, Senator Feinstein (with her own concealed carry permit as well as armed guards nearly everywhere she goes) and most of the other gun-phobic ignoramuses would insist it's an "assault weapon" and should be banned.
On On Guns and Safety
Posted on January 7 at 9:37 a.m.
Why is it that after each of these horrible mass shooting tragedies, nearly 100% of which are perpetrated by people on legal psychiatric drugs, the government wants to take guns (not big pharma drugs) away from all the people who DIDN'T commit the crime?
Has it occurred to you, Cat, that at the same time as the government has granted itself the right to assassinate Americans (and has, at least two that we know about), that it wants to disarm the population.
There's a movie about what can occur if only the police (now heavily militarized in the USA) and the military are allowed to have guns: Schindler's List.
On Doing Good Will Do You Good
Posted on September 26 at 2:25 p.m.
How many people trust that tests conducted by PG&E would ever result in findings that would require it either to make hundreds of millions of dollars in retrofits to Diablo (assuming this would even be possible) or shut it down.
If the answer is 'few,' then setting aside the difficulty of a decision to conduct tests that could kill large numbers of fish and marine mammals, but that also could produce results that might prevent a Fukushima-like disaster 90 miles from Santa Barbara, why wouldn't such tests be conducted by a non-biased agency that's also more competent than PG&E?
No need to respond if the answer is simply that the nuclear power corporations completely control the nuclear regulatory processes.
On Staring Down a Sound Gun