To be clear though, NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE YOUR PHONES!
It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a web-capable fraud phone. Don’t be paranoid, no one is coming for your phones. You can keep any phones you had before the ban went into effect, including digital landline phones and analog landline phones. Also, we have generously exempted the Nokia 3310, Motorola V3690 – V50, Ericsson T68i, and the Samsung SGH-F210 from the Web-capable Fraud Phone Ban of 2018.
Clearly we should ban smart phones. Texting while driving kills *more* minors than guns. If we’re going to save lives by banning objects, then it makes sense to go after the greater danger first. If you don’t think we should get rid of all the smartphones, then your concern is not about saving children’s lives. Why don’t you care about children, you monster?! Don’t Google and Apple have blood on their hands? How many politicians are bought and paid for by Google and Apple? If you think we should get rid of smartphones to save lives, then what actions are you going to take to make that happen? Are you willing to demonstrate in the streets, mostly peacefully smashing windows, committing vandalism, and burning private property and garbage? Will you put on a mask and patriotically bash the fash? Maybe you could bravely form a crowd to harass some politicians, bureaucrats, and pundits (and their families) where they eat and where they sleep? Maybe you could dox some phone nuts and lie to get them fired. Let’s see how the ban on all smartphones works, maybe then we’ll go after little things like guns.
https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cause-of-accident/cell-phone/cell-phone-statistics.html
You see how damn stupid that all sounds?
The Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 is not just stupid, it’s bad legislation. Look into it and decide for yourself whether the bill is an act of willful ignorance, simple laziness, blatant incompetence, or calculated intent. You can read the entire text of the bill here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/66/text. People on the Left insist they are educated on the issues and only slack-jawed mouth-breathers disagree. Educate them.
EDUCATE YOURSELF ABOUT GRIPS
Ignorant people seem to believe pistol grips and forward grips are dangerous. This notion is…silly. A pistol grip or a forward grip does not affect the rate of fire. It does not affect the size of the bullet. It does not affect the velocity of the bullet. It does not affect the mechanical operation of the weapon in any way. Weapons equipped with pistol grips and forward grips do not magically change from semiautomatic to fully automatic (no matter how scary they may look).
“A pistol already has one pistol grip!” announced the uneducated person. “With a second pistol grip, (gasp) it must be… TWICE as dangerous! Ohhh (clutches pearls and delicately collapses onto a fainting couch)!”
Educated people know a pistol grip provides ergonomic advantages to the law-abiding civilian, as does a forward grip.
“[A] pistol grip allows for a little better leverage on the gun compared to the traditional stock… One-handed control is going to be a little better with a pistol grip stock, as well, which will make reloading easier since you’re better able to support the weight of the gun with one hand… Other tasks, such as potentially steering children away from danger with your off-hand in a home defense scenario, will also be a little easier for much the same reason.”
https://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/defensive-shotgun-stock-comparison/
Better grip means better safety. Better control means better safety. Why do uneducated people want to make it more difficult for law-abiding civilians to protect their children? What is the compelling reason to ban weapons with pistol grips and forward grips?
EDUCATE YOURSELF ABOUT GRENADE LAUNCHERS, AND ROCKET LAUNCHERS, AND BEARS! OH MY!
‘USA Today’ laughably warned everyone about the threat of AR-15 rifles with chainsaw bayonets. Not to be outdone, some uneducated legislators said, “Hold my kale smoothie!” Thankfully they want to protect us all from rifles and shotguns equipped with GRENADE LAUNCHERS! Remember, this is supposed to be a serious bill. It’s not parody. It’s not satire. This is actual text from their totally, totally, super serious, bill.
(36) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(iv) A grenade launcher.
(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any one of the following:
(vi) A grenade launcher.
So many questions!
What is being done about the menace of sharks with laser beams on their foreheads?
What’s next, a ban on phasers? Light sabers? Those funky n-shaped weapons from Space: 1999?
When was the last criminal use of a rifle- or shotgun-mounted grenade launcher in the U.S.?
We already have laws for grenades, what is the compelling reason to double regulate grenade launchers?
If double regulation is good, would “double secret” regulation be even better?
Which Leftist is willing to own the grenade launcher section of the bill? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
EDUCATE YOURSELF ABOUT GUN STOCKS
Look out folks! It’s a military style assault, uh, stock. Hm. Yeah. Apparently some stocks are so lethal, they cannot be allowed to fall into the wrong hands. Just ask the uneducated people. Folks, a telescoping stock is a useful feature to a law abiding citizen, because law-abiding citizens come in different sizes. Law abiding citizens of different sizes have arms of different sizes. Being able to adjust the length of the stock allows the law-abiding owner to adjust the fit. A better fit leads to better control and better accuracy. Why do gun-grabbers want to ban a firearm with a feature that allows a law-abiding civilian to establish better control and accuracy? Uneducated people may claim, “Such weapons are more easily concealed and therefore a greater threat!” Such a notion is rightly mocked.
According to the FBI, blunt objects were used in 496 crimes, rifles were used in 323 crimes. So, when are uneducated people going to pass legislation cracking down on the menace of folding or telescoping canes?
“If it saves just one child… wouldn’t it be worth it (sob)? Why won’t they act to save the children? Those unfeeling monsters! You know why, don’t you? They’ve been bought off by the National Cane Association. Blood is on their hands! They are complicit in murder! Reee! Reeeeee! Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!”
EDUCATE YOURSELF ABOUT BARREL SHROUDS
In 2007, Carolyn McArthy introduced an assault weapon ban. It included language regulating barrel shrouds… but she didn’t even know what a barrel shroud was? Click the link for video LOLs.
In 2015, Congressman David Cicilline (D-R.I) introduced the 2015 Assault Weapons Ban, including language regulating barrel shrouds… but he couldn’t say what a barrel shroud was. The internet is forever. LOL away.
It’s 2019. Guess what language is included in this legislation.
(36) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following: (v) A barrel shroud.
(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following: (iii) A barrel shroud.
A barrel shroud is a safety feature that protects the law-abiding civilian from injuring his hand on a hot barrel. Why do gun-grabbers want to ban a firearm with a safety feature? What is the compelling reason to ban weapons with barrel shrouds?
EDUCATE YOURSELF ABOUT THREADED BARRELS
Uneducated people seem to believe we must be protected from threaded barrels.
(36) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following: (vi) A threaded barrel.
D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following: (i) A threaded barrel.
A threaded barrel can be fitted with a suppressor, called a silencer (or a muffler?!) in the National Firearms Act of 1934. Suppressors do not make a weapon fire silently. They reduce the noise level. Reducing the noise level makes it safer for the law abiding citizen to fire without hearing protection (such as when defending one’s self and others from a home invasion). Suppressors are already federally regulated and legal to buy.
A threaded barrel can also accept a muzzle break. Muzzle breaks reduce recoil (the felt “kick” from firing a weapon). Muzzle breaks can also help prevent barrel rise; when a weapon is fired, the muzzle rises, taking the weapon off target momentarily. This is undesirable, especially in a crisis situation. There is also evidence that muzzle breaks increase accuracy in some weapons.
https://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/guns/rifles/shooting-tips/2008/11/muzzle-brake-pros-and-cons
This part of the legislation has an effectiveness problem. It takes as little as a tap and die toolset, available at hardware stores, to add threads to a firearm barrel. How do uneducated people envision such a ban will prevent criminals from installing such features on new weapons?
This legislation has an enforcement problem. How does the government intend to prove threading on a pre-ban barrel (or a post-ban barrel fitted to a pre-ban firearm) occurred after the ban?
What is the compelling need to ban weapons with threaded barrels?
EDUCATE YOURSELF ABOUT COLOR
Under APPENDIX A–FIREARMS EXEMPTED BY THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN OF 2017, there is a category for Rimfire Rifles–Autoloaders.
Folks, the .22 Long Rifle (.22 LR) cartridge is one of the lowest power cartridges in production. Its best uses are plinking, small game hunting, and small varmint control. The Armalite M15 22LR Carbine fires the .22 LR, but it would be banned, despite other autoloaders being exempted. Why? Maybe (just maybe) it’s because the Armalite M15 22LR looks like an AR-15. If it is not strictly for its appearance, what else could it be?
“Uneducated people, be honest. It’s because it’s black isn’t it? Black rifles matter! If you can’t be a black rifle, be a black rifle ally, and, uh, check your privilege! Love trumps hoplophobia!”
EDUCATE YOURSELF ABOUT FLAP A AND SLOT B
Uneducated people claiming, “Some men have menstrual periods and some women are anatomically male,” have the same credibility when it comes to where a magazine fits into a pistol.
(36) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1of the following:
(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
Uneducated people, based on your comprehensive tactical expertise or vast technical knowledge, how does the placement of the magazine well, in relation to the pistol’s grip, affect a weapon’s rate of fire or a projectile’s lethality? Please be specific and provide links.
EDUCATE YOURSELF ABOUT YETIS AND UNICORNS
Did Senator Feinstein fly a hippogriff along the Yellow Brick Road and then over the Loch Ness Monster to sponsor this legislation?
(36) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
Uneducated people, without looking it up, can you name five semiautomatic pistols, featuring fixed magazines, that have the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds? If not, how about three pistols? How about one pistol? Can you name one semiautomatic pistol that has a fixed magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds?
Using the internet, I found the Bittner repeating pistol 1893 (7-round capacity), the Steyr Mannlicher M1894 repeating pistol (5-round capacity), the “Broom Handle” Mauser C96 from 1896 (6-round, 10-round, and 20-round versions), and the Steyr Model 1911/Model 1912 (8-round capacity, the Repetierpistole M1912/P16 variant has a 16-round magazine).
Uneducated people, how many crimes have been committed using the rare 20-round C96 Mauser (not shown) and the unusual 16-round Repetierpistole M1912/P16 (also not shown)… in the U.S. in the last 50 years? What is the compelling reason to ban these weapons?
While we are at it, let’s look at (36)(G); not the improbable bra size, but the ridiculous legislation.
(36) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
(G) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Gun grabbers, quick, without looking it up can you name a shotgun with a revolving cylinder? Now go look it up. You might find a museum piece called a Colt Model 1855 Root revolving shotgun. Outside of antiquities, you might find the MTs255. The MTs255 uses a 5-round revolving cylinder.
Uneducated people, why is this shotgun, with a revolving cylinder, so much more dangerous than the semiautomatic shotguns in the list of exempted weapons? Why must it be banned?
Here are some questions that should be asked of every U.S. legislator that supports this bill:
What is your personal expertise in ergonomics that makes you qualified to write law on a diverse assortment of mechanical devices?
What is your personal expertise in mechanical engineering that makes you qualified to write law on a diverse assortment of mechanical devices?
What is your personal expertise in firearm design or gunsmithing that makes you qualified to write law on a diverse assortment of mechanical devices?
If you do not have personal expertise in these fields, did you consult anyone with such expertise before moving forward with this bill? If so, what were the names of the individuals and when did the consultation take place?
Here’s a question that should be asked of journalists:
Why aren’t you asking questions about legislation that would limit civil rights?
“Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Carper, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr.Whitehouse, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Schatz, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Warren, Mr. Markey, Mr. Booker, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Harris, Mr. Casey, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Smith, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Hassan, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Merkley) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary”
What degree of competency should we expect from U.S. legislators making making a six-figure salaries? Higher than this, don’t you agree?
What do I know? I’m Justa Gaibroh.
“The Senators and Representatives… shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”
—U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3
Leave a Reply