...to the Fudds:
In his letter Monday, "Firearms were misrepresented," Lawrence G. Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation accused the Chronicle editorial board of defaming basic semi-automatic firearms as "military style" and "assault" weapons. Well, if you look at pictures of the weapons confiscated from the killing fields of Mexico, they look exactly like our military issue. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, well, you know.
Well, it might look like a bona-fide assault weapon, but of course it doesn't shoot like one, unless the Mexican drug runners are buying stolen GI weaponry. (And, well, so what if it did?) The Chronicle editorial board was doing nothing more than using the incendiary emotion-driven rhetoric so essential to the gun-grabber canon. "We must ban teh eeevil assault veapons! For teh safety of teh childrenses!"
Keane also stated, "These guns are used every day for hunting." I've been hunting for more than 50 years, on leases from the Panhandle, the Piney Woods, South Texas and Colorado, and to this day, I have never seen a hunter on a lease even in possession of one of these "military-style" weapons, much less hunt with it.
Neither did Jim Zumbo, apparently, but that didn't mean people don't do it. And, well, if the author of the above missive never saw one of those "military-style" rifles, well, that only means he and his fellow hunters were using a "high-powered long-range sniper rifle." Honestly, what's up with this whole "military-style" bullshit anyway? From what I understand the Army's M24 Sniper Weapon System is more or less a souped-up Remington 700 chambered for the .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO — you know, probably one of the most popular hunting rifles, and hunting cartridges, ever made. Really, if we're going to call one type of gun "military-style" wouldn't the honest thing to do be to call them ALL that?
|