Weapons of “war”
The hoplophobic, fascist shitlibs don’t have the vaguest clue what they’re prattling about. Not that that’s ever stopped them.
Sen. Kennedy Stumps Mayorkas (Again) Regarding the Definition of ‘Assault Weapons’ He Wants to Ban
Well, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is not having a good week. Earlier this week, he got raked over the coals by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) over the border crisis.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) also got a turn with Mayorkas and, as he’s been known to do, asked the secretary a few simple questions that someone in his position ought to be able to answer.
“Mr. Secretary yesterday you testified in judiciary that you support an assault weapon ban and we didn’t have much time to talk about that. Tell me your definition—once more—of an assault weapon,” the senator asked.
Easy, right? When someone says he wanst to ban assault weapons, it stands to reason that he should know what an assault weapon is. Mayorkas would prove in his responses that he has absolutely no idea.
“I am not an expert, right respect to the definition but of the assault bands. And so I defer to—”
“You are the Secretary of Homeland Security,” Kennedy reminded him, clearly suggesting that he ought to know the answer.
“—as as a I was about to say, I defer to the experts, I defer to, for example, the definition of an assault weapon that was codified in the prior iteration of the legislation that was passed and that was in operation when I served as an assistant United States attorney and the United States Attorney in the Central District.”
“So you would support the prior definition…”
“Senator I must defer to the experts with respect to the definition,” Mayorkas said again, before really stepping in it. “But I will tell you, for example, military—military-style weapons are of tremendous concern. ”
“You personally think we should ban assault weapons, and I know you tobe an intelligent man and a thinking person, so I know you’ve thought about it,” Kennedy responded. “What do you mean by military-style weapon?”
Spoiler alert: Mayorkas didn’t know the definition of “military-style weapon” either.
Naturally, Mayorkas is hardly unique in his stem-to-stern ignorance.
For Democrats, whenever there is a mass shooting, it’s the fault of the gun. If the shooter is someone folks view as someone “one of theirs,” it’s the fault of the gun and the evil intolerant society that somehow must have affected the poor shooter, as we saw in the case of the Nashville shooting.
The answer, of course, is that in every case, whoever the shooter is, it’s the fault of the shooter. A gun is just a tool, that can be used for bad or for good, like a knife, a fork, or virtually anything else. The gun isn’t invested with evil powers to shoot people just because it’s an AR-15 or an AK-47. It just looks scarier to folks on the left who know nothing about guns. We heard crazy things on Tuesday from Democrats like Joe Biden claiming that an “AR-15 bullet” will “blow up inside the body.” Yet, he’s in a position of immense power to affect laws and is issuing executive orders from on high when it comes to guns.
But I think the award for the unhinged take of Wednesday has to go to Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), a radical Squad member, who just started screaming in the public hallway, falsely blaming Republicans for school shootings. To him, “doing something” means more gun control. Yet he never seems to explain how if virtually every school is “gun-free” why there are mass shootings in schools. So instead of talking about real solutions with Republicans, he throws a fit in the hallway for the cameras and calls the GOP “cowards.” No, sir, cowards are those who shout down anyone who thinks differently than you and who are afraid to deal with the real issues. But Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) stops, tries to calm him down, and gets him to talk. He does manage to lay a little reality on him.
Massie told him that schools don’t allow teachers to carry. That caused Bowman to lose his mind, screaming, “More guns equals more death.” Notice how Bowman was shouting and not listening to what Massie was saying.
Yep, just your typical, Mk 1-Mod 0 shitlib arrogance in ignorance. As for civilian vs military arms, here’s another little tidbit of information the Leftards will blithely go to their graves in total blank ignorance of (via Herschel—thanks!).
Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “This responds to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request…concerning the following: 1. All classification letters (or if classification letters were named in some other way, those records) regarding Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle, Serial No. GX4968 which was approved in approximately 1963; and 2. All classification letters…for AR-15 platform rifles predating the submission to the ATF for the Colt AR15 SP1 Sporter Rifle,” Adam C. Siple, Chief Information and Privacy Governance Division, notified attorney Stephen Stamboulieh in a Nov. 22 response (see below). “In response to your request, we have processed a total of 2 pages of responsive material.”
That referenced FOIA request was sent in May on behalf of firearms designer Len Savage and resulted in the production of a Dec. 10, 1963, letter from what was then called Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division to Colt’s Patent Fire Arms Manufacturing Company, Inc. This is the first such classification for the AR-15 and has not been published before.
The FOIA request itself was prompted from a Nov. 2017 article in The Atlantic in which the magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”
“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”
So, they were being sold to civilians first?
Apparently so, yes. But don’t let’s anybody be holding their breath waiting for the lying liars of the Lyin’ Left to abandon their screeching about “MILITARY-STYLE FULLY-SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULTWEAPONGUNS OF WAAAAAR!!!” They won’t even tone it down a notch out of a half-decent sense of shame, count on it.
Never, ever forget: on any given topic or issue, it’s never really about what they say it’s about. They care not a fig for addressing a problem, resolving an issue, saving a life, or their perennial fave “TEH CHILDREN!” No, it is all about the same thing it always and forever is: power, and control. Period fucking dot.
To call them “pond scum” would be a gratuitous insult to the relatively innocuous slick of slimy green goo that floats atop a pond.
Update! Via WRSA, an excellent Stefan Molyneux quote.
If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.
Says it all, don’t it?
- Entries
Latest Comments