Shouldn’t people who advocate on one side or another of the Firearms Issue at least have a basic understanding of what they’re talking about?

Joseph Warren, Editor

Editor@TheIndependentDaily.com

I apologize for the “wordy” title but I can’t think of another way to approach the issue. Time and again it seems that those arguing for and against Gun Control measures seem to miss the point entirely, owing to their lack of experience and clarity of thought.

Foremost, it really doesn’t have anything to do with the type of weapon, whether capable of firing 15, 30 or ten rounds: they’re all deadly weapons, and in the hands of an experienced and practiced user are capable of reaping as much carnage regardless of whether it has a black plastic stock, or a conventionally fashioned wooden stock. Read the full article here.

(A note about magazines: Sometimes erroneously called, “clips.” The frequency of a jammed feed to a firearm is greater when higher-capacity magazines are used. It’s a matter of physics: Too much weight being pushed up in the magazine each time the weapon fires and cycles. Very expensive “mags” employ better springs and can reduce the number of jammed rounds, but most people tend to opt for less expensive magazines, allowing them to “invest” more heavily in ammunition. -GL Hill)

It doesn’t matter if it is auto-loader or bolt. There is no difference if it is a six shot cylinder or ten round mag, when a speed loader is involved. The leap we made 200 years ago is the most significant: our advance from muzzle-load to cartridge. Muzzle-loading is what our forefathers had in mind when they spoke of the right to “...keep and bear arms.” Having shot muzzleloading weapons, I can tell you that I’d prefer a baseball bat.

Today, though, ne’er-do-well advocates for Gun Control imagine that banning Assault weapons will curb the need of the few to commit atrocious acts in the name of their cause or belief or delusion. Here’s an article we published in 2012. Read and think, for God’s sake:

Obama Affirms Feinstein’s Federal Hunting Limit on Children

Joseph Warren, Greta Hill, Publishers

Editor@TheIndependentDaily.com

“...to continue killing more than ten (10) children, as an example, (he) must change out (his) magazine...” - Barak Obama and Diane Feinstein

This week President Barak Obama approved Senator Feinstein’s proposal to limit the number of “Kills per Weapon” to not more than ten (10) children without requiring a shooter to change out a magazine or revert to a second or subsequent weapon, failing once again to understand that it has nothing to do with the firearm.

The proposal advanced by Senator Diane Feinstein, California, and Manchin, West Virginia (both supporters of the Iraq War), is very reminiscent of the long-expired Assault Weapons Ban, a law which did nothing to curb violence in America.

Under the provisions of this legislation, weapons (or the magazines that feed them) may not have a capacity in excess of 10 rounds. Ipso facto, if any given shooter is a qualified marksman he will thus be limited to not more than 10 kills per magazine or weapon. Thereafter to continue killing children, “the shooter must change out the magazine and replace it with a fully charged magazine...”

As an alternative, the law will clearly imply that he may, “...at the shooter’s own discretion, carry a separate, 10-round weapon hence obviating the need to re-charge the firearm previously so depleted...” (“Optionally, the shooter may avail himself of as many additional weapons as needed of said capacity.”)

In this way, Feinstein and our other Congressional members may avoid having to confront the issues of violence in our society: Please read, Connecticut, Why Are You Shocked, elsewhere in this issue. Likewise, no single Senator will be required to generate any original thoughts that might raise the ire of our friends at the National Rifle Association, the NRA.

As well, and foremost, to admit that our societal ills lay (at least in large part) at the feet of a government that promotes and condones violence on a global basis is tantamount to having pulled the trigger on the children of Connecticut. Thus both Feinstein and Manchin, who dually supported the 2002 resolution to invade Iraq are manifestly culpable in the murders of those 20 children.

...Reagan decided that providing help to the mentally ill was an unnecessary expense...

I suppose it goes without saying that likewise are Obama, Bush, and a host of other ne'er-do-wells, or as we theorize in an article appearing elsewhere in this journal, “Kill ‘Em All,” Lunatics.

Historically, culpability extends to the late 1960’s when then-Governor of California, Reagan decided that providing help to the mentally ill was an unnecessary expense, releasing people who otherwise would have benefitted greatly from mental health treatment: Fortunately, and seemingly, most have found their way into the US Congress and the White House.

We cannot legislate good behavior. We cannot legislate civility. We can only teach our children that violence is not an end in itself, and then, practice what we preach.