"No One But the Authorities Should Have 'Assault Weapons'"
If these people had "assault weapons," they would probably (check all that apply):
___ rob liquor stores
___ engage in drive-by shootings
___ leave them lying around where their kids could find them
___ blow away motorists during traffic disputes
___ go on schoolyard rampages
___ accidentally kill friends and family members
___ none of the above
Might there be a moral, historically justified need for "non-sporting" arms in the hands of "average citizens"? The next time someone tells you we need to ban "assault weapons," ask them to take this test. Why not send a copy of it to the politicians who represent you and see how they answer?
[Adapted from my poster that originally appeared on GunTruths.com]
Check out the latest from other Gun Rights Examiners: Austin: Philadelphia cop killers: guns or politics? Charlotte: Guns and the Constitution: The 'well regulated Militia' DC: Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley: Damn the high crimes rates, full speed ahead on gun control! Denver: A thought experiment Los Angeles: Gun control in churches, Part II: The Militia. Milwaukee: Time to change our attitude about guns Minneapolis: Dispelling the myth of “The Wild West” St. Louis: Hunting rifles--the next 'sniper weapons'