I mean people like David Hogg will say anything, no matter how false if it furthers their agenda
The latest example of Hogg displaying his ignorance comes to us from an interview he recently did on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell, one chronicled over at the Washington Free Beacon:
After telling viewers that Americans need to find unity in addressing gun violence, Hogg was asked about his recent efforts to ban certain kinds of semiautomatic firearms at the state level. He said he and other March for Our Lives activists had introduced a ballot initiative to ban so-called assault weapons in Florida. He said those who own an AR-15, the most popular rifle in the United States, want to hunt other people.
“The truth of the matter is weapons like the AR-15 have an effective range of over 1,500 meters,” Hogg said. “If you’re using a weapon with an effective range of over 1,500 meters, you are not defending yourself. You are hunting a human being.”
The most impressive thing I see here is just how wrong Hogg is on just about everything.
For one thing, the effective range for an AR-15 is closer to 600 yards at best, or about 550 yards. That’s a far cry from 1,500 yards. Since I know someone like Hogg would never take the word of a writer for Bearing Arms on this, let me quote Mic.com instead.
The AR-15 platform is known for its accuracy, especially over longer distances. For some types of hunting, this characteristic is particularly useful for successful hunts. Each bullet type has varying effective ranges. The .223 is effective from 400-600 meters. An AR-15 chambered in .308 has an effective range to about 800 meters; .338 Lapua’s effective range is about 1500 meters; and .50 BMG has the range of about one mile.
I would simply ask Hogg one question. If people who own ARs, and I am one, are actually “hunting people” then where are all the dead bodies? There are over 15 million ARs out there, so, again, where are all those who have been “hunted down”? Hogg, of course, could never answer because he knows that is a lie. But he is willing and eager to lie if it furthers his cause.
Ever notice how most laws pushed by the Cult of Gun Control target law abiding Americans and not criminals? I suspect that is a feature, not a bug. Consider this
The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, or H.R. 8, does not target criminals or those intent on breaking the law. Instead, it curtails the normal, law-abiding behavior of everyday gun owners. Worse, anti-gun advocates are deceptively marketing this legislation as a “safety” bill that will keep guns away from dangerous people.
As a rape survivor, I know firsthand the need for self-defense against an attacker with a weapon, and I find it particularly helpful in my own journey of healing to instruct women in how to use a firearm and empower themselves so they never become victims. I have a standing notice to my personal network, that if they want firearm safety and instruction, I am willing to provide that to them at no cost.
A few months ago, a close friend took me up on that offer, and we headed out to a local gun range where I taught her how to shoot. I remember the giant smile on her face when she realized she hit her intended target. I was proud of her for stepping out of her comfort zone to learn a new, important skill.
If H.R. 8 had been enacted, and I had lent my friend that firearm to go back to the range and continue her education, I would have committed a crime punishable by up to $1,000 in fines or one year in prison. That’s because the bill makes it illegal for someone to hand over possession of their firearm to most other people — even if they know the person well. Further, innocent mistakes would not be excused under this law. A person would not have to know they were committing a crime in order to be prosecuted.
Making criminals out of the law-abiding seems to be more important than stopping violent criminals to the left. Note you never hear about harsher sentences for those convicted of violent crimes from the Cult of Gun Control. In fact many times they actively oppose such laws. Makes you wonder what their real aim is doesn’t it?
There they go… AGAIN
Remember kids, only certain viewpoints are included in leftist “inclusion”
As Democrats hold hearing on gun violence, they’ve brought in a host of people who are supposedly survivors of gun violence of one sort or another. The idea is that many of these will talk about the horrors of what they experienced. The idea is to manipulate emotions so they can label opponents as some sort of monster.
However, there’s one very notable survivor of gun violence that’s notgetting a chance to speak on the topic which is so intimately touched his life.
House Republican Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., said Wednesday that Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee refused to let him testify at a hearing on gun violence about his experience as a victim of the congressional baseball practice shooting two years ago. The move infuriated his fellow Republicans.
Scalise told Fox News that he found out over the weekend that Democrats had chosen not to allow his testimony at the hearing –“Preventing Gun Violence: A Call to Action” — something he said is a courtesy traditionally extended to any lawmaker who wishes to speak.
“I thought it outrageous that they want to try to silence this message, because in the end I’m still going to get my message out. They can’t silence this issue,” he said.
Scalise was shot and injured in June 2017. But despite his experience and perspective, he said that committee Democrats said he would not able to testify — although he could submit written testimony for the record, which he did.
“I was surprised, because it’s unprecedented,” he said. “In the past, when we were in charge on the Republican side, if the Democrats selected among one of their witnesses to be a sitting member of Congress, we always gave them the courtesy of testifying in a proper setting, and we were asking for that same courtesy — and they denied it.”
It has to fit the narrative
Pirates Cove brings us this foolish woman who foolish people elected
What could ever go wrong? William Teach explains
This would negatively impact the criminals who use firearms how, exactly? Those few nutjobs hell bent on creating a mass shooting situation won’t care, most seem to not expect to live. Your average criminal won’t care, because they’re surely stealing ammo and/or the money to buy it. This is aimed squarely at the law abiding citizens who hunt, shoot for sport, and want to protect themselves and their loved ones. Funny how everything Democrats propose is about causing issues to the law abiding, eh? (via Twitchy)
Cam Edwards nails the truth
Someone needs to sit this moron down and explain about natural rights
Obviously, Swalwell forgot to real the actual Bill Of Rights, which restricts government
Rep. Eric Swalwell: ‘Right to Be Safe’ Trumps Right to Bear Arms
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) is pledging a gun control vote next week by exclaiming that the “right to be safe” trumps the right to bear arms.
He argues that the “right to be safe” supersedes “any other rights” possessed by Americans:
William Teach responds to totalitarian starter kit Swalwell
Teach needs to know that Swalwell might order a nuke strike on him.
Education, education, education. the left loves to prattle on about education, until someone teaches their child gun safety by actually educating them about firearms
Great for him, and her. Of course some folks were TRIGGERED! Like this moron
“Encouraging kids to use weapons will just continue the high level of gun related accidents and other problems relating to them being in the hands of people who have bad intentions,” one person commented. “We should get rid of all guns!”
Then there was this brain donor
@scw_88reloaded haha that’s funny, coming from someone from a country that has just about killed and oppressed more people and human rights than anyone has ever in the history of history. Don’t confuse freedoms with you just being a douche bag.
Seriously, TEACH you children and empower them