|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Florida Democrats on Capitol Hill Bring Out Gun Control Bills
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
This week, two Democrats representing Florida on Capitol Hill brought out gun control measures.
U.S. Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., brought out the “Law Enforcement Protection Act” which would expand background checks on “armor-piercing, concealable weapons.”
The congresswoman’s office offered some of the details on the bill on Wednesday.
“The Law Enforcement Protection Act would add armor-piercing, concealable weapons as a category under the National Firearms Act (NFA). |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/17/2021)
|
This man obviously knows nothing about firearms other than hating them.
There is no such thing as “armor-piercing, concealable weapons.”
Ammunition is armor-piercing; the firearms are not.
A deer rifle can chamber armor-piercing ammunition. In fact, most rifle calibers will pierce body armor. Does that make a Winchester 94 an “armor-piercing” weapon? A typical handgun can chamber armor-piercing ammunition. Does that make a Beretta 92FS an “armor-piercing, concealable weapon?”
This kind of idiocy passes for “good governance” in Democrat/liberal circles and the MSM.
But it is just that; idiocy. And not only should it not be introduced into the legislature for consideration, it shouldn’t be considered by anybody at all. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
