And if shotguns are so devastating — so much more formidable than those dreaded assault weapons (that aren’t) — shouldn’t you endeavor to ban them? Of course, this is on the agenda; as Dianne Crimestein once admitted, if she had her way, all guns would be confiscated (except, presumably, the one she owns).

And I can see it now. Let’s say that the anti-Second Amendment folks succeeded in banning assault weapons (that aren’t). When another incident such as the Aurora, Colorado massacre occurs — where most of the wounds were inflicted with a shotgun —the media will actually report it accurately. You see, there’ll no longer be a reason to lie and place the onus on the AR-15 because it will already be illegal, and the reportage will go something like this: “Experts point out that a shotgun is actually more devastating in close-quarters attacks on soft targets than AR-15s and AK-47s — which are already illegal.” And the statist politicians will say, perhaps, “It’s a hole in the legislation that ‘assault weapons’ were criminalized while far more dangerous shotguns were left on the streets. Obviously, if these hand cannons are more devastating than an AR-15, they’re assault weapons, too. And we must take action immediately.” That’s exactly how our assault liberals might play it.

As of now, though, you can still own a gun that is so much more dangerous than an assault weapon (that isn’t). In fact, Vice President Biden endorses it. And thank you, Uncle Joe, for explaining firearm facts of life to America. I’m so glad you’re on our side.




"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."