Willful ignorance of liberalism

It's like a badge of honor among liberals to be willfully ignorant of anything to do with firearms. To start with, the use of the term assault weapon is incorrect and deliberately misleading. An assault weapon is a select fire weapon capable of automatic fire. Those are controlled by the Firearm Act of 1934, are extremely rare and heavily regulated. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a single crime committed by any legally owned assault weapon. The correct term is for the weapons that the liberals seek to ban is semi-automatic modern sporting rifle. Modern sporting rifles are identical in function and often caliber to semi-automatic hunting rifles that have been used for hunting and target shooting for generations. What makes something an 'assault weapon' in the eyes of the ignorant liberals is appearance; not function. Banning a weapon based on appearance is beyond stupid. If scary appearance is a criteria for banning something then lets ban Chevy Impalas with large chrome rims. After all, they are the 'car of choice' among gangbangers. That sounds stupid; doesn't it? So why is an 'assault weapon' ban any different? Modern sporting rifles are used in only a very tiny percentage (<2%) of crimes involving guns. Just as with all long weapons (rifles and shotguns) criminals don't use modern sporting rifles all that often because they cannot be easily concealed. So why do they want to ban a weapon that can be proven through statistical evidence to not be a significant factor in crime? Because it looks 'scary'. It is easier to ban something that looks scary and is easy to demonize. They know that this ban will not have any direct deterrent effect on crime, but that doesn't matter. When the killings continue they will just pick another type of weapon to demonize and ban. Then they'll say the same thing as they do now; "We're not trying to take away your guns for hunting; just these evil looking guns that are killing our children." And the process will continue until there are no guns......but there will still be killings.

Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy feels free to impose her will on law-abiding gun owners and the US military, but it is painfully evident that she is absolutely ignorant in both areas. She wants women in combat, but she thinks that they can't handle one of those evil assault weapons. As opposed to the American public, the military actually has assault weapons. If a women can't handle a select fire weapon, she has no business being in a combat arms branch of the military. Having been through a number of weapons qualifications evolutions in an integrated unit, I can vouch for women being able to effectively operate automatic weapons. They may not have the strength and endurance needed to effectively operate in demanding infantry roles, but shooting isn't a problem. 

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/01/25/dem-rep-women-should-serve-in-combat-but-shouldnt-use-assault-weapons/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share+Buttons

http://minx.cc/?post=339255