Senator Joe Manchin calls for an assault weapons ban. Maybe the folks who said to never trust a Democrat who claims to be pro-gun have a point:
Gun rights advocates have always said that an assault weapon bans would lead to further gun controls and eventually a repeal of the Second Amendment, but Manchin and Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough both commented that the Second Amendment shouldn’t protect the right to own weapons designed for combat.
How many more will betray us? How many more before gun owners wake up and mobilize? If you live in West Virginia, I’d call his office (855-275-5737). If you don’t, I’d use the contact form. But I’d let him hear form us.
You cannot write off Democrats. Party leaders make decisions based on the support they get from constituent groups. If gunnies refuse to participate in the selection and election process for Democrat party candidates positive legislation won’t move.
I’m aware, but I’d like to see them not fold like a house of cards when the going gets tough.
A lot of them don’t. This guy is just a wuss.
There’s a difference between “Not trust a (Democratic) politician” and “Write off….”
Note the former is deliberately non-partisan. I trust Tom Coburn, but no one else at the national level (although if he supports one, it’s all over).
Shouldn’t and doesn’t are two different things. Sorry, but the 2nd does protect it.
This is pretty big; he’s the one who “literally shot a hole in the president’s ‘cap and trade’ climate bill” in a 2010 ad.
He needs to be spanked (in a figurative sense, before we do everything we can let him spend more time with his family in 2017).
“Second Amendment shouldn’t protect the right to own weapons designed for combat.”
That IS EXACTLY the type of weapon that it protects. The equivalent of any weapon that could be used against us by a tyrannical government.
Tench Coxe-
“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
The stupid thing is this: how many guns commonly used by hunters are *precisely* designed to be “used in combat”?
Heck, muzzle-loaders like the Kentucky rifle WERE DESIGNED FOR COMBAT!
I’d also like to point out that, statistically, almost no “military-style” rifles owned by civilians have been used in a mass shooting, and almost no “military-style” rifles WILL be used in a mass shooting. (If we take the number of rifles used in a mass shooting this last year, and divide that number–which will be in the 10s at most–by the number of “military-style” rifles owned by civilians–which will be in the MILLIONS–the number comes out to be very, very, VERY, close to zero.
Maybe someone should point out to these idiots that self-defense is by definition combat?
(I’m ignoring the vast majority of cases where no gun is fired, but even then, a kind word and a rifle will get you further than a kind word and a pistol….)
Well I’m pretty certain that it wouldn’t have been any better if he had used an 870 with 00 buck, and 870’s are one of the more popular “Hunting” guns
The example I like best is the Winchester 1907, “designed for the civilian market”… as a removable-box-magazine semi-auto with more muzzle energy than a .223, and used by France in the Great War.
It’s almost like the only difference between “designed for combat” and not “designed for combat” is one that’s already banned, which is being a damned machine-gun.
(That and they can’t get past cosmetics… doubtless the same mindset that says a Civic with a wing on it must be a race-car.)
These people, well, the ones that really count at the top like this Senator, don’t give a damn about such details. They just want to ban guns, and “assault weapons” are just today’s Saturday Night Specials.
It’s mostly emotional for the ones at the lower levels, and again, such logical arguments hold no sway, they’d say “that should have been banned back then, too”.
I heard Senator Manchin today use the term “clip” when he should have used the term “magazine”. This ought to clue us in to Senator Manchin’s previous posturing on being pro-gun when he was running for his seat in the pro-gun state of West Virginia. A bona fide gunner politician would never confuse the terms “magazine” with the term “clip”, but the anti-gunner politicians typically do this all the time.
Reminds me of the guy down South running for some obscure post, but he did some ads holding a gun which got him notoriety. When I looked at one, it was a lever action and much if not most of the time he was violating Rule 3.
He didn’t win the election….
Thanks a lot for the tip, knowing he’s a poser is useful.