Assault Weapons for everyone…YEE HAW!

click to enlarge
Aw yeah, baby. Can you just SMELL the testosterone in the air?
Time for us all to put on our Sunday best (or Ted Nugent t-shirts) and rush to K-Mart and buy us some TEC-9’s.

You know, maybe I had President Bush all wrong. In a day and age where Americans are scared shitless to fly planes, the government wants to know how much you have in the bank, what library books you’re taking out, and parents wake up screaming FROM nightmares that their kids may be slaughtered in school by nutcases…

HEY!!! MAYBE HAVING ASSAULT WEAPONS HIT THE STREETS IS THE WAY TO GO…YEEEEEE HAW!!!!

(Scene in school lunchroom)

Billy: “Hey Tommy, what’s in your lunchbox?”
Tommy: “Well let’s see… PB&J, a drinkbox… AND A 9mm MOTHAFUKKIN UZI, FAGGOT!!! WANT SOME? WANT SOME??? BRING IT MOTHAFUKKA!!!”

Ah ha ha… you can bet little Tommy won’t be HAVING trouble with the school bully in the playground THIS semester. (Provided Butch isn’t packing his MAC-11 too!)

Imagine how different 9/11 would have played out if we all had assault rifles back then? The hijackers pull out their boxcutters, Todd Beamer and some old lady in the back row cocking their AK-47’s. Aw yeah!

Instead of “Let’s Roll”, the theme would be “Go ahead, Raghead… make my day!” Spraying those terrorist dickheads INTO swiss cheese… in a, uhm, pressurized… cabin.

Well, the plane would have exploded and crashed over Shanksville, PA. either way, but that’s not the point.

Now you may ask, “What the hell good is an assault rifle against a Boeing 767 hurtling at your office window at 700MPH?”

Again you miss the point! Why do you hate America so much? Picture all those brave office workers pulling out their Colt AR-15’s FROM under their desk and opening fire on Mohammed Atta. Maybe one of them will get him in the head before they go out in a blaze of glory… hell, that’s the All-American heroic stuff that the Rambo movies are made of, bay-bee!

And maybe it won’t help much if a suicide bomber sets himself off, blowing you to smithereens on a crowded street… but woudn’t you feel better just knowing with that soothing cold steel in your hands you at least tried?

Don’t worry about all those pansy liberals, either. Last I’ve seen on message boards, they all seem to FOR getting assault rifles. Muttering something about “Taking back their country” or something.

Probably had something to do with Charlton Heston’s latest dementia-induced gaffe at an NRA fundraiser:
“If guns are given out liberally, then only liberals will have guns!!!”

On second thought. That’s kind of a scary scenario, isn’t it?

In Other News: Reports that sales of Viagra and Penis Enlarging Pills have been steadily declining since men started buying assault rifles again.

Uhm…. probably just a coincidence. That’s all.

16 thoughts on “Assault Weapons for everyone…YEE HAW!

  1. I saw the most disturbing infomercial yesterday about the NRA. I had to turn it off half way through. I literally felt sick to my stomach.
    I for one am not happy about the gun thing. My boys are in public schools and with just that running through my head at night, I want this law back on the books ASAP>

  2. In all fairness to President Bush (and I can say this because the Glenn Reynolds’, Acidman’s and Michele’s of the world abandoned me a long time ago) he said he’d sign the bill if it was presented to him, but congress didn’t.

    This was an election year ticking time bomb for him that put him in a “damned if he did/didn’t” situation, whereas Gore would have signed it without hesitation because there is no way in hell the NRA would ever support him anyway. Bush stood to lose even more of his base if he pushed for it. So I think he did the right thing (election-wise) to avoid it altogether.

    I have a feeling after the election is over whoever’s president will sign it back INTO law, and only a handful of gun collectors will have them locked away in a case.

    For those that want an assault weapon that badly, all I can suggest is the Marines are looking for a few good men right now…

  3. Absolutely. I spend 5 nights a week at home alone due to Ralph’s work schedule. I know where all the weapons in my house are and know how to use them all. I know all the gun safety rules. That means that if I point a gun at someone, I’m not worrying about injuring them.

    I honestly just never understood why a 15 round magazine turned a 9mm pistol INTO an assault weapon, but a 10 round magazine was fine. It doesn’t make sense to me.

  4. It doesn’t to me either. That’s just plain dumb.

    Well, you know me… I’m all for anyone responsible with a gun (especially if they’re not afraid to use it, wherein lies a big problem these days.)

    Funny stance considering I’m not one of those people (responsible ,that is).

  5. I’m not saying responsible gun owners should be able to have them. My friend Shell is a hunter and is very responsible. It’s all the non-licensed on the street wackos I’m concerned about.

  6. It’s all the non-licensed on the street wackos I’m concerned about.
    Oh so now you’re saying you got a problem with me now??? Come on, I’m quiet, I’m a loner and I keep to myself… how much trouble can I possibly get in?

    (Actually, are you kidding? My kids can kill each other with sporks if I leave them alone long enough… picture me leaving my uzi laying around near my lost keys with whatever’s left in the magazine after my trip to the post office! And as far as these mythological “anti-gun” liberals go, I have actually yet to meet one. Really. In NYC we all cheered on Bernie Goetz, until he became an asshole.)

  7. I have to say that I’m glad its dying … and good riddence to it. It’s bad legislation, prohibiting cosmetic differences, but not actually prohibiting the lethal part of any weapon. Nor did it give law-enforcement any teeth to support the ban, unless a banned style of weapon (folding stock, etc.) was actually used in a crime. I am terribly sympathetic to the concerns that gave rise to this monstrousity of a law, but I have little tolerance for bad and useless legislation. By all means, let this thing die, and work for something better.

  8. Kids will find a way to do whatever and so will criminals but people who shouldn’t have them, we shouldn’t be making it any easier for them to get them.

  9. Wulfgar: I read your stuff in the Metafilter a few days ago. I remain impressed with your knowledge in firearms… but are you sure that’s all that the ban was about? Cosmetic changes? I read today it also means TEC-9’s and AK-47’s can now be sold.

    I can agree that better laws are in order. But I think you and I both know to expect a lot of hysteria and hyperbole FROM the NRA no matter what.

    ………………………………
    Naturally I can’t find the article now, but jebus… the NRA is turning this whole thing INTO a clusterfuck about gun control laws in general. It’s not about guns, or rifles, or shotguns… it’s about assault weapons. They serve only one purpose. To make sure whatever in front of you is not just dead, but REALLY dead. It’s like chefs arguing that they need chainsaws and dynamite in their kitchens.

    ………………………………………

    I agree with you Kat… the whole scenario is pretty frightening. Have people forgotten Columbine and/or the Beltway sniper so soon? Yes, honest responsible citizens will be buying them and following the rules… but HAVING so many available will make it easier for the criminal element to get their hands on them too. Trust me.

  10. The problem with the legislation was that it did define certain cosmetic features as being the reason for banning certain weapons. Basically, the legislation said “We’re going to ban weapons that look scary.”

    Why would a Colt AR-15 be banned and not a Ruger Mini-14? They both use the same cartridge, the same bullet, they’re both semi-automatic, and both accept detachable magazines. Functionally, they are nearly identical. But the Colt has a black synthetic stock and the Ruger has a wooden stock and that was the defining characteristic that made one a banned weapon and one not.

    Why is the number 10 magical? Why is a magazine over 10 rounds considered “high capacity”? I was serious about the 15 round magazines. They were banned as well. Why?

    One of the characteristics of banned weapons was HAVING a barrel mount for a bayonet. Because those drive-by bayonetings were the problem with today’s youth.

    The assault ban had been in effect for over 4 years before Columbine happened. If it’s the answer to all our problems, why didn’t it work? The Beltway sniper only fired one shot at each victim and that could have been done with a weapon that wasn’t banned. (I didn’t look it up. It’s late.)

    Seriously, what do we do? Ban all guns? I guess it’d be okay with me since I know how to fight with a knife (having a Marine for a husband is FUN!), but we’ll see a rise in other types of violence. Then what?

  11. Because those drive-by bayonetings were the problem with today’s youth.?
    *SNORT* Yeah, I think bayonettes outlived their usefulness once we moved out of flintlocks.

    I was serious about the 15 round magazines. They were banned as well. Why?
    I dunno. Personally, what the hell difference does five more bullets make? (Unless we ask that creep in that apartment complex that’s terrorizing your neighbohood).

    Seriously, what do we do? Ban all guns?
    Yes! Not only that but let’s ban all kinds of things that may kill us: Cars, toasters near bathtubs, anvils hanging on the edge of roofs, pianos lowered FROM windows, and electricity.

    Yeah, I’ve reread the Metafilter thread, I’m convinced and this law was yet another “feel good” piece of legistlation with a title that makes you look like the Grinch if you oppose it. Some of the things in are just plain dumb. I think a more logical bipartisan law is in order. Something that would ban these weapons in certain locations, harsher penalties for the people caught committing a crime with them, people caught robbing the manufacturers (which is how the criminals get them)… something that requires a little bit of common sense, and hopefully not in the wake of a horrific tragegy because then the government tends to go overboard.

    Uhm how about an “Assault Weapons to Psychopaths Ban” instead?

    I still wanna know why so many guys are positively giddy over legally owning an assault weapon though… that part still disturbs me.

  12. I still wanna know why so many guys are positively giddy over legally owning an assault weapon though… that part still disturbs me.

    You know, last night at dinner, I looked at Ralph and said “I want an Uzi!” He asked why and after a few minutes of thinking about it, I realized I wanted it just because someone had said I couldn’t have one.

    It’s so childish and petty, but HAVING someone tell me I can’t do or have something increases my drive to do or have it. Of course, I won’t get one because it’s completely impractical (really, how exactly do you accessorize around an Uzi?), but right now I just really want one.

    I’d be interested to see how many people went out and got smashed at the end of prohibition, just because it was something they were “allowed” to do again.

  13. I don’t think its bad legislation so much as poorly written legislation (and I was under the impression a weapon had to have at least 2 of certain specific qualities to fall under the heading “assault weapon”. Like both a bayonnet and a high powered scope) I support the 2nd amendment too, but there’s nothing wrong with sensible gun laws. I would never support laws that attempted to eliminate handguns or most hunting guns, for example. Bare in mind that a rocket launcher is also a military style weapon and it qualifies as an “arm” because it can be carried on your person. But do we really want to see folks stocking up on those kinds of weapons? The thinking here was to get the stuff as out of circulation as is humanly possible. Because if it’s created, it IS going to land in criminal hands. To say “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is tantamount to saying “drugs dont’ kill people, people kill themselves” ok, fine, so legalize all drugs, cool? There is just no reason for a regular citizen to need these types of weapons; if you need a military style weapon to hunt a dear, you’re a bad hunter. I’m sorry Mr. Gun club’s right to own an AK47 isn’t more important than the little girl in WATTS’ right to not have her head blown off through her bedroom wall. And that’s who we’re concerned with here, really, the gangs. Sure they’ll get weapons no matter what, but why make it easy? Why increase their kill ratio? There’s a reason why so many police organizations support the ban, they’re the ones who have to dodge those rapid fire bullets. I respect where the gun lovers are coming from, really I do, but I don’t feel this to be a real threat to the 2nd amendment. And I think we may need to weigh the damage that can be done by a particular weapon. Nobody would try to argue that the laws governing a nuclear bomb and a conventional bomb should be the same. That’s all I’m trying to say, I think. It’s just my opinion and of course, as always, it’s worth exactly what you paid for it. ;o)

  14. Excellent discourse. Witchy has written a very good position and I especially liked the part about the little girl in Watts — HAVING come FROM a bad neighborhood myself, where whenever gunfire was heard everyone automatically had to get off the couch and sit on the floor … till you heard the police chopper overhead. Insanity.
    Where was I? … The NRA — most powerful lobby? With their arsenal — scariest, maybe.
    I look forward to the “re-writing” of this legislation, to see how it evolves and to which GROUP it will become pabulum.
    Up here, there are no requirements for buying, carrying; no paperwork necessary, no divulging of possession, either. I was thinking of getting one for my dog, to give him something to do when the squirrels are taunting him FROM outside the fence, you know, for target practice… maybe I’ll make it a 15-round semi-automatic so he won’t have to stop so often to reload.

    🙂

Comments are closed.

Proudly powered by WordPress
Creative Commons License
EricBrooks.Com® is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are solely those of Eric Brooks. They do not necessarily reflect those of his employers, friends, contacts, family, or even his pets (though my cat, Puddy, seems to agree with me on many key issues.). In accordance to my terms of use, you hereby acknowledge my right to psychoanalyze you, practice accupuncture, and mock you incessantly with every visit. As the user, you also acknowledge that the author has been legally declared a "Problem Adult" by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and is therefore not responsible for any of his actions.


Connect