PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on August 14, 2019, 06:51:24 PM
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/democratic-dishonesty-on-assault-weapon-bans/
When they had the power to reinstate it, they didn’t even hold a vote.
‘The 1994 assault weapons and high-capacity magazines bans worked. And if I am elected president, we’re going to pass them again — and this time, we’ll make them even stronger,” Joe Biden promised this week.
The only thing stopping the assault-weapon ban from getting through the Republican-controlled Senate, Biden wrote in a New York Times op-ed on Monday, is “weak-willed leaders who care more about their campaign coffers than children in coffins.”
Accusing anyone of caring more about getting campaign contributions than stopping the murder of children is incredibly vicious. It’s the type of ad hominem attack you would not expect from a candidate who portrays himself as a bipartisan dealmaker who can restore civility and unite a divided country.
It’s also an incredibly hypocritical attack coming from Biden. Do you know how many votes Democrats held on gun control during the first two years of the Obama-Biden administration, when there were huge Democratic congressional majorities? Zero. If “weak-willed leaders who care more about their campaign coffers than children in coffins” are the only thing stopping the assault-weapon ban, isn’t that a searing indictment of President Obama, Vice President Biden, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Majority Leader Harry Reid?
Unlike most elected Republicans, who believe that an assault-weapon ban would be unconstitutional and ineffective at stopping mass shootings, those Democratic leaders all believe the assault-weapon ban is constitutional and actually works. So why didn’t Pelosi and Reid hold any votes when Democrats had a once-in-a-generation supermajority in Congress?
-
The Assault Weapons Ban that lasted from 1994 - 2004 did absolutely nothing to reduce crime. Nothing. All it did was awaken people's desire to have another good rifle like the AR-15.
-
The Assault Weapons Ban that lasted from 1994 - 2004 did absolutely nothing to reduce crime. Nothing. All it did was awaken people's desire to have another good rifle like the AR-15.
Big time. Forbidden fruit.
-
Big time. Forbidden fruit.
The AR-15 wasn't even on my radar screen until 1994. Then all of a sudden several companies besides Colt started making and selling them. I bought one soon after the ban.
-
Clearly it's yet another layer of dishonesty by the progressive left.
They don't give a rip about minorities, illegals, abortions, gays, gun control, healthcare, etc. It's all about power and regaining that power, whatever it takes.
-
The AR-15 wasn't even on my radar screen until 1994. Then all of a sudden several companies besides Colt started making and selling them. I bought one soon after the ban.
How do you like the AR-15? When I tried the M16 years and years ago I didn't care for it. It felt plastic, the recoil spring in the stock rattled around, and there were lots of little fiddly bits to keep track of when breaking it down. It just felt cheap. I'm hoping that the different manufacturers have upgraded its feel so it may be worth considering again.
For my .223 fix I went with the Ruger Mini-14. Compact, light but solid. With the ban again being considered it might be worth expanding my collection.
-
How do you like the AR-15? When I tried the M16 years and years ago I didn't care for it. It felt plastic, the recoil spring in the stock rattled around, and there were lots of little fiddly bits to keep track of when breaking it down. It just felt cheap. I'm hoping that the different manufacturers have upgraded its feel so it may be worth considering again.
For my .223 fix I went with the Ruger Mini-14. Compact, light but solid. With the ban again being considered it might be worth expanding my collection.
I like the Mini-14 as well.
-
How do you like the AR-15? When I tried the M16 years and years ago I didn't care for it. It felt plastic, the recoil spring in the stock rattled around, and there were lots of little fiddly bits to keep track of when breaking it down. It just felt cheap. I'm hoping that the different manufacturers have upgraded its feel so it may be worth considering again.
For my .223 fix I went with the Ruger Mini-14. Compact, light but solid. With the ban again being considered it might be worth expanding my collection.
I don't know what era of M-16 you had, but today's AR-15 is much improved. There are also tons of aftermarket support if you want to upgrade or customize it.
However, stick with the better brands like Colt, BCM, Daniel Defense, LMT, and a few others. I have a Colt M4 (6920) and love it. It is by far my favorite rifle, and came with Magpul FDE furniture. Bench rested I can get sub MOA accuracy and it is a totally stock rifle. Being a carbine it is relatively light and handy, and with the flattop, optics are easy to mount. I have a 1-4x24 scope on it designed for AR type rifles.
-
I don't know what era of M-16 you had, but today's AR-15 is much improved. There are also tons of aftermarket support if you want to upgrade or customize it.
It was back in the 1980s... I guess I never really got used to the sight up on top of the carrying handle and the kludge front sight to make it work. I equated AR15 with civilian M16 without the rock and roll feature and never looked further. The M4 does look sweet and I regret not looking in that direction for so long. Thanks for the pointer!
-
It was back in the 1980s... I guess I never really got used to the sight up on top of the carrying handle and the kludge front sight to make it work. I equated AR15 with civilian M16 without the rock and roll feature and never looked further. The M4 does look sweet and I regret not looking in that direction for so long. Thanks for the pointer!
Most AR-15's sold now are flattops without the carry handle. You either mount an optic or just a rear sight. Mine came standard with a Magpul flip up rear sight as a back up in case your optic (scope, red dot, etc) gets damaged.
I really like the M-4. The collapsible stock and 16 inch barrel make for an easily carried, and great handling rifle.
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz081419dAPR_A20190814104514.jpg)
-
It's all about power and regaining that power, whatever it takes.
I was trying to sort out the response to my liberal brother’s retort that the problem with capitalism is some people get rich and exploit others.
Given that that is true: it is human nature to attempt to become powerful. We are territorial and we have strong instincts to hoard resources, it served our survival in prehistoric times. I hope most of us here have heard of Milton Friedman “Greed is good” or more accurately, “ healthy greed is the engine of a good economy”. It is the basis of all transactions. You want my money and I want your gadget. We trade. We both get what we want and satisfy our greed.
In capitalism these trillions of small greedy transactions are where resides control of the economy. Sometimes entities will accumulate a lot of power and wealth and indeed exploit others.
So the leftist’s solution to this problem is centralized control, an economy planned and controlled by a group of self appointed administrators. They claim that this way, such exploitation will be avoided. Now here is the problem: being human they too tend to accumulate personal power and wealth. History has proven that in reality this type of economy fails for the country as a whole. Capitalism may have examples of greed and exploitation within it, but the economy in general thrives. Socialism and communism cause the economy as a whole to rot and die. What is the difference if both have some individuals who accumulate too much power and wealth to the detriment of others?
The answer is freedom. On the individual level. In capitalism when all individuals are free, corrections are made, alternatives are found, competition arises, because the control is spread among all the people.
In a planned economy, individuals are not free. Control is in the hands of the top few planners and it is impossible for any few individuals to make all the right trillions of decisions that result in a good economy. Always, once in control, their first priority is to hang on to their power.
So if it is a given that humans will always be greedy and some will rise higher with more power and exploit others, given we cannot avoid this, then the worst possible system would be one where all economic decisions are on the hands of a few, with enforcement power over the rest. The best system to minimize harm and benefit the most people would one where the economic decisions and control is dispersed and spread around among all the people.