You can't really mix fact and opinion. Especially when you have no idea what it is you're talking about. Yes, everything I have to say in this article is my opinion. But, I'm not going to force you to believe that what I'm saying is true by placing "fact" after every sentence I type, like this Liberal did. I'm just going to throw a few things out there and let you draw your own conclusions....and hope that you aren't as narrow minded as Mr. T above.
As far as "assault weapons" go, let's review some reasonable, statistical information I found that also claims to be factual. Mr. T, in addition to his rants like the one above, included a picture of Bill Clinton (known liar) with a quotation from Clinton himself reading, "Half of all mass killings in the United States have occurred since the assault weapons ban expired in 2005," he said. "Half of all of them in the history of the country."
Well, this seems to be another Clinton lie. According to newsbusters.org (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/01/14/bill-clinton-whopper-half-all-mass-killings-us-have-occurred-assault-wea) , Grant Duwe, director of research and evaluation at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, and also somewhat of a liberal sympathizer, conducted research and compiled a list of data going back to 100 years. In his research "he has identified 156 mass public shootings in the United States in the past 100 years. Duwe defines a mass public shooting as an incident in which four or more victims are killed publicly with guns within 24 hours -- in the workplace, schools, restaurants and other public places -- excluding shootings in connection with crimes such as robbery, drugs or gangs.....Since 2005, when the assault ban expired, there have been 32 such mass public shootings, including seven in 2012, Duwe said. So that's just over 20 percent of all mass public shootings, which is much less than Clinton's 50 percent."
I wonder what hat Mr. Clinton is pulling his "facts" out of? In addition, I think it also needs to be known that during Clinton's "assault weapons" ban, the Beltway Sniper killed 10 people and injured others in the Washington D.C. area spanning across two different states.
So..."assault weapons" were banned, but this criminal was able to go on a three week shooting spree with a sniper rifle?! But...criminals are supposed to follow laws, too! Stupid liberal logic crap.
By the way, did you ever stop to think that the reason no "killing sprees/mass murders" were ever stopped by a law abiding citizen with a gun is because said law abiding citizen was able to put down the perpetrator BEFORE he was able to kill the amount of people needed to label the incident as a "mass murder?" These liberals never stop to think of it from that point of view. Narrow-minded morons.
Now, on to my next gripe about Mr. T. Like I said about his main post generating debate, well, he stuck his foot in his mouth again, trying to alter the meaning of the Second Amendment, just like his idol, Obama. While trying to make his senseless babble legitimate, he decides to offer his definition of the term "well-regulated militia." In response to an opposer, Mr. T responds:
"the "well-regulated" militia is the strongest part of your post. it means the governing body will regulate the peoples' arms-bearing."
Excuse me?! Are you really that ill-minded?!
A well-regulated militia is the regulation of the militia! Not the militia regulating the people! At the time of the Bill of Rights, many of the militiamen carried their own weapons to war, however, it was the government's job to hire the militia commanders and to properly train the militiamen to protect the people and keep the state free. A well-regulated militia also meant to properly inform the militia to know that their sole purpose was to protect the United States and its people, so as not to obtain too much power and believe they could take control. If this happened, the United States would have fallen back into a state of unrest and the country would have ended up being ran by a tyrannical government, like England, who used the militia and other authorities to carry out senseless acts and control the people. America had already fought to free themselves from this tyranny! Why would they have given the militia total control of their lives again?!
Same thing now. Our military is not a properly trained and properly informed military so that they can control the American People. They are a well-regulated military so that they may protect the American people and the freedoms of the American people! Which includes..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Infringe: Actively break the terms of; or Act so as to limit or undermine.
The government is infringing on our rights as gun owners. You say they aren't taking our guns, but infringe also means to limit. The government is limiting our right. Our forefathers guaranteed in the Bill of Rights that this would not happen. Our forefathers guaranteed that a properly functioning militia would protect it's people and not allow their right to bear arms to be infringed upon. This is the meaning of the Second Amendment. This is what the Second Amendment truly stands for.
But you have Obama and his worshippers, like Mr. T, who believe that the government and the militia are there to regulate it's people and infringe upon their freedoms and slowly undermine the people of America. It's sick. It's disgusting. It's disgraceful. It's unpatriotic.
I understand that guns kill people. Food kills people. Drinks kill people. Cars kill people. Even the air we breathe can kill us. Creating more gun laws or eliminating guns altogether won't make the world a better or safer place. That's a fact that there's no denying.
It's time for people to start having Faith. And not in your government. You're not the sole interest they are worried about. The big government of today is doing nothing but slowly reducing this once prosperous country to ashes.
Yet, this article will not help these narrow-minded people at all. So excuse me while I continue to weep tears of frustration at the stupidity of Mr. T and his kind.