Obviously, this is terrible, terrible advice.
via: Weasel Zippers
BIDEN: Well, the way in which we measure it is—I think most scholars would say—is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense,” Biden said. “I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.”
I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal.
See more at: Weasel Zippers
Naturally, the gun-grabbers see nothing wrong with this.
via: Washington Times
A proposed disaster emergency ordinance in Guntersville, Ala., would give police overreaching power to disarm individuals in the event of an emergency. (…)
“This is in there to protect public workers and any volunteers helping should someone become unruly — which can happen since emotions are high — that it would give an officer that authority,” the mayor told ABC 31. “It’s just there to protect people.” (Read More)
Democrats in Minnesota have introduced legislation that commands all “assault weapons” to be surrendered, destroyed, registered with the state, or removed from the state by September 1, 2013.
The bill (H. F. 241) defines an “assault weapon” as any semi-automatic pistol, shotgun, or rifle with a pistol grip, telescoping stock, or a thumbhole stock, as well as other arbitrary features.
The bill provides no means of compensation for the owners of any of these lawfully purchased firearms, and calls for the prosecution of those who fail to submit to state registration. Those who register their firearms will be subject to home inspections to assure proper storage.
The bill is authored by the following Constitution-shredding Democrats:
This affront on the 2nd Amendment, if enacted, will obviously have no effect on violent crime. However, Democrats in Minnesota have made it clear that they have no intention of discussing the effectiveness of their legislation.
Democrats keep saying they want to have a “discussion” on gun rights in order to pass “common sense” solutions to combat gun-violence.
So imagine my surprise when 5 Minnesota Democrats decided to march out during expert testimony from two firearms experts.
— Rob Doar (@robdoar) February 6, 2013
The presenter, Rob Doar, calmly, and rationally explained how the gun-control laws currently being proposed would needlessly outlaw cosmetic features which have no affect on the accuracy or rate of fire of the weapon.
Apparently, that was an inexcusable offense.
Rep. Debra Hilstrom, Rep. Shannon Savick, Rep. Dan Schoen, Rep. Erik Simonson, and Rep. Linda Slocum, all walked out of the room.
— Rob Doar (@robdoar) February 7, 2013
Perhaps Rep. Debra Hilstrom could have provided the insufferable presenter they invited with examples of all of the criminals inflicting additional damage due to a retractable stock that she encountered as a prosecutor. But alas, the public was deprived her rebuttal.
As a former mayor, I assumed Rep. Shannon Savick would be used to the agony of listening to the grievances of the commoners. With her vast knowledge of firearms, she could have provided an articulate reason as to why the presenters’ testimony was worthless.
Surely Rep. Dan Schoen has no objection to police officers using so-called “assault weapons” to protect themselves – even retired ones, such as himself. Perhaps, due to his experience, he already knew everything presented and felt patronized by the expert.
Rep. Erik Simonson is the co-sponsor of a bill to ban “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” ammunition magazines. His devotion to having a meaningful discussion on the effectiveness of his proposed legislation apparently ends as soon as someone attempts to have one. Rep. Simonson’s self-described greatest qualification as a lawmaker is found in his ability to reach “common ground” between adversarial parties – unless, of course, the adversarial party actually challenges his predetermined viewpoint.
Rep. Linda Slocum is the classic irrational hoplophobe, who describes her position as “not real pro-gun.” Quite ironic that a teacher, who likely has little knowledge of the information which was presented, decided to remain willfully ignorant, leaving the room in order to protect her naïve, unsupported views on firearms.
These representatives are contemptible cowards. Completely unable to refute factual evidence, they couldn’t scurry out of the room fast enough.
Democrats have no intention of having a “discussion” on firearms. They want you to shut up and turn in your guns.