New antigun article someone should respond to...

[RicT]

"NRA Misleads on Assault Weapons"
NRA misleads on assault weapons - Salon.com

I created a response to this idiotic article, but for some reason the Salon.com website won't let me post it (wonder why?).

Other people should respond to this article, if for no other reason than to not allow only antigun views to be posted.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[oakchas]

See what he did..?

Now we're calling handguns with more than a 10 round Mag... an Assault Pistol now. This makes the AWB a success....


Balderflop!

[PEF]

Respond to your representative, not to Salon. If the legislation never gets out of the house, these various and sundry articles are meaningless.

Also, I rarely, if ever, read comments to articles on websites. I know few people who do. There are better places to spend your energy, IMHO.

[RicT]

Respond to your representative, not to Salon. If the legislation never gets out of the house, these various and sundry articles are meaningless.

Also, I rarely, if ever, read comments to articles on websites. I know few people who do. There are better places to spend your energy, IMHO.

Yup, I agree that all reader here should contact their representatives and make their views known about more restrictive gun laws. But...I also see the need to respond rationally to articles like this, since public perception is part of the battle. Know why political campaigns spend so much time & money on the "fence-sitters"? It's because they know that people "on the fence" can be swayed by exposure to the facts.

And most people don't want to back a losing cause; if Joe Citizen (with no dog in the fight) sees that as many "pro-gun" people respond to these articles with differing information as "anti-gun" people respond with support, Joe Citizen might NOT be eager to join the "losing side".

Just my 2 cents...

[sensei2]

i've never heard of Salon.com (not surprising - i don't get around the web much), but with ads for Huffpost and the NY Times, i guess i know how they feel about firearms. my first and only visit. if i want the left's slant on something i'll go directly to the NY Times site.

[ksholder]

Well, if the program (94 AWB) was a failure, let's redefine it so we can call it a success. Hummm, if we imply that mags that hold more than 10 rounds were rare, or an add on to already existing guns... Fact is that the vast majority of those guns used in crimes that had mags exceeding 10 rounds were the stock mags. There was no 10 round mag for a G17 in most jurisdictions - they simply did not exist. Therefore, it is a no-brainer that they would be represented farily highly in gun crimes.

This is idiots spinning "facts" for the consumption of clueless morons. Unfortunately, there are enough clueless morons around to make this worth the idiot's time. The pitty is that both the idiots and morons can vote.