February 18, 2011

Arms control

In the wake of the lunatic who went on the Arizona shooting spree we saw no end of the media fixating blame on all but the shooter.

This was followed by an MSM assault of the second amendment right to bear arms.

One of the more amusing exchanges I saw involved an elected official and a TV journalist. The topic was having a limit of 10 shot clips instead of 30. The elected official, to his credit, did not assume the premise. While the journalist, apoplectic, tried to spring the trap over and over.

I pondered the same journalists reaction if his said restriction of our freedom had come to pass. And another unfortunate incident occurred. Given his premise he would, no doubt, praise that the law had resulted in a better outcome then Arizona...

While we are in the fantasy land lets presume the following. A crazed gunman decides to carry out a shooting spree. He buys his guns and ammo and sees that the 10 round clip will impede him. So he puts in some time and trains like this guy:


While purchasing he opts for a 30 round clip. Figures 30 is huge and does not bother...

In the second fantasy the 30 round clip, potentially saves lives.

So much for fantasy...

1 comment:

flyingvan said...

Since the whole reason behind the second amendment is preservation of the free state (read: people against government) people must have the same access to weapons as their government. I don't want to restrict the military to 10 rounds. It was probably smart that Andy only gave Barney one bullet, though