That's right, take comfort in that slow Joe has your back.
Meanwhile, not Steven King is not only letting his anti gun flag fly.
(If you're shocked don't be; he's always been one. When some punk who did a school shooting was found with a book written by King about... a school shooting. King went right into blaming guns and gun culture.)
But the funny part is that King is charging for his essay. Ace has a fun take down, but soon gets to the meat of the matter on why the antis are for such seemingly stupid and cosmetic bans.
The measures being proposed are so obviously inadequate to accomplish what they purport to accomplish that a gun-righter could almost say, "Sure, let baby have his bottle, if you want these cosmetic, symbolic, futile actions to convince yourself you're a Good Person, and then you'll shut up about it, fine."
But a guns-righter can't say that. Because he realizes something: These proposed measures are in fact so obviously inadequate to accomplish what they purport to accomplish that that must not be the reason they are offered at all.
Because these measures would accomplish nothing directly, one must then wonder why they would be advanced at all; and of course the immediate realization is that they are advanced to accustom people to the ritual of giving up this and that freedom in response to some new Moral Panic.....
But they cannot agitate for that, for the public would not hear of it; so instead they push measures which are deliberately calculated to be perfectly useless for attaining their stated goal, but in fact are quite useful for attaining their unstated goal, which is to say, conditioning the public to give up gun rights on a piecemeal, this-one-and-then-that-one basis such that that which cannot be accomplished in one great step can be accomplished in 40 or 100 smaller ones.
And hence the shouting, because we are, in fact, not talking about these measures in reality; we are on both sides really talking about the intended endgame of complete disarmament of the public.
If we were talking about achieving the goal of reducing the number of people killed by guns, why on earth would a gun-control advocate be extolling the shotgun as a more efficient and deadly person-killing weapon than an AR-15?Hence you see New York State go from a 10 round limit to a 7 round magazine limit.
And back to Weer'd. Yeah, Biden really did recommend that a shotgun over a rifle because it's more deadly. In some cases... yes, but funny how "more deadly" is a good thing when he deems it. And if those "evil" guns are less deadly, then why's he wanna ban them?
And speaking of real motivations here's a choice little exchange.
GINGRICH: Isn't your real view that you would ban pistols if you could?You trust Piers Morgan right? I'm sure he's concerned only with these rifles, and doesn't want a handgun band. Never-mind that the Feinstein bill he supports covers many pistols, and even shotguns.
MORGAN: No, it wouldn't. What --
GINGRICH: Wouldn't you ban pistols if you could?
Oh and speaking of Piers Morgan here's him talking with someone with very sexist ideas about guns
You see those lil' women are too weak to use those beefy manly ARs and should use "traditional" rifles.
Which... tend to have more power per cartridge.
Anyone who's fired an AR would know the 223 has very mild recoil. But know, these clowns say if you're worried about recoil you should go for the shotgun... and not the rifle.
You wanna take gun advice from someone who has made it a life's work to lobby and legislate restrictions on guns?