Anti-Gun NJ Politician
Confused About Guns
By Brian Anderson on April 28th, 2014
Article Source
Besides the Constitutional issues with gun control, the thing that bothers me the most is that the anti-gunners just don't know what the hell they are talking about. They say they want to have a "conversation" about gun control, but they aren't even armed with the basic knowledge of how firearms work, let alone stats and facts to back up their attempts to disarm the American populace.
Beth Mason
Case and point: Beth Mason. The Hoboken, NJ councilwoman recently made an absurd statement concerning so-called "assault weapons." For some reason the New Jersey politician helped the NY Daily News collect signatures for a petition to have assault weapons banned in New York. And she did this because:
"Automatic weapons, it's a whole different story. Why do you need automatic weapons, especially in cities? Having guns, it's not necessarily about protection, and it raises issues."
That's an awful lot of "wrong" she managed to squeeze into 3 sentences. First, the "assault weapons" idiots like her are trying to ban are not automatic weapons. They are semiautomatic in that they fire one round per trigger pull. Automatic and/or select fire weapons fire bursts or multiple rounds per trigger pull. The problem with "assault weapons" isn't that they can "spray bullets," it's that they look scary to nimrods like Mason.
And you'd think she'd know better. According to her, she grew up in Virginia shooting rifles, and even passed this hobby onto her kids. She's one of those "I support the 2nd Amendment, but…" politicians. Is it possible that she never encountered a semi-auto rifle like a Ruger Mini 14 or 10/22 in all her years of shooting? More likely, she's lying.
It's a common ploy for anti-gunners to claim they own and use firearms. They think it gives their unconstitutional agenda legitimacy. It's kind of like when a racist tries to legitimize his bigotry by saying, "I have lots of black friends."
Next up, Mason gives the flawed and common argument that somehow people living in cities have less of a right to own firearms than other people.
"We don't need (insert scary gun here) on the streets of our cities."
Last time I checked, there is no urban qualifier for the right to keep and bear arms. Why does living in a city make someone less able to exercise their civil rights?
Lastly, she perpetuates the lefty myth that firearms are only for personal protection. They like to argue that the only thing a gun is good for is protection and as such, nobody "needs" anything beyond a basic revolver or single-shot rifle or shotgun. I guess that's true if you are under intermittent possum attack, but in a real-life defensive scenario smart people want something that holds as many rounds as possible.
The Constitution is pretty clear on this. It doesn't give the government the ability to decide what people need and it certainly doesn't mention the purpose of the 2nd Amendment being about personal protection.
Not only is Mason a firearms expert and Constitutional scholar, she is also a stand-up comedienne. She attended a Gabrielle Giffords Americans For Responsible Solutions fundraiser last week hosted by Bill Clinton. On the honor of working with Clinton and Giffords, she said:
"These leaders are dedicated to standing up for good government and the rights of everyday people."
I am assuming this was a joke. I sure laughed. She can't possibly think that liberal Bill Clinton has ever been about "good government," or that gun-grabbing Giffords is interested in the "rights of everyday people." Then again, she thinks that people can buy fully automatic weapons at Wal-Mart so maybe her comedy is really just delusions brought on by schizophrenia.
Was this information valuable to you? If so, please consider donating, becoming a member or renewing your membership, or buying a DVD, book, tee-shirt, or other gear at our JPFO store.
