Quote:
One of the arguments frequently fielded by people with an anti gun rights agenda is that "assault weapons" were designed to bring about maximum carnage in the least amount of time possible. After thinking about it for a long while, I came to the conclusion that I have never seen a gun slogan that read, "For when you need a kill." or "More time. More destruction." In fact, most are quite the opposite, GLOCK has "Perfection", Sig has "To hell and back", and FNH has "Distinct Advantage".
Most of these simply imply reliability, accuracy, or just being better than the competition. I don't think that when a gun designer sits down the only thing running through his head is how he can better kill people. I would imagine that they think about reliability, accuracy, durability, ergonomics, compactness, and versatility.
I certainly know that when I buy a gun, those are the qualities I am looking for. Anybody else have thoughts on this?
|
Your question is thought provoking, Shep, . . . but I always prefer to look at the "end result" before I determine if something is good or bad, . . . for ME, and for mine.
On August 6, 1945, . . . thousands of people lost their lives because of one little "Fat boy" bomb.
Ask any survivor of Guam, Okinawa, Tarawa, or Pearl Harbor, . . . especially those who were slated to be on the mainland invasion, . . . they'll probably tell you that nuclear bombs are pretty cool.
AR's are pretty cool, . . . M14's are pretty cool, . . . M1's are pretty cool, . . . M1 carbines are pretty cool, . . . Mini 14's are pretty cool, . . . when they are used to protect ME and mine.
Protection from aggression is the sole reason for having nuclear weaponry, . . . and it goes down the scale from there. Having a better weapon system than the enemy, offers that person the advantage, . . . and to the enemy, . . . disadvantage.
The words used by the anti's to defame, disrespect, defile, and denigrate a weapon system are simply put: bumper sticker lingo and sound bytes to get the attention of the low information voter, or person of interest.
The best example of that was the "representative" in Colorado who proudly proclaimed her part in adding the magazine ban to their recently passed anti gun legislation. She was so far down the information trail that she thought that a magazine was indeed the bullets themselves, . . . and finally, once those "high capacity" magazines were shot up, . . . that the dange would be over.
She was all over her high horse of competence, knowledge, information, capability, . . . and was too stupid to know or understand that 30 round magazines can be reloaded. Those are the people who make up those phrases, bumper stickers, and sound bytes.
May God bless,
Dwight