After opposition from the National Rifle Association, 22 Democrats joined Republicans in a Senate vote this month to negate the District of Columbia's tough gun registration requirements and overturn its ban on rapid-fire semiautomatic weapons.(emphasis mine)
And by "rapid-fire semiautomatic weapons" they mean handguns that aren't revolvers--aka a modern sidearm. People who no nothing of firearms may conclude that such language clears the way for fully-automatic Uzis. The difference, of course, is that you have to pull the trigger each time you want to fire a shot with a semiautomatic, whereas Uzis and other sub-machine guns can fire multiple round bursts. Shots fired from legal handguns would only be as rapid as the finger on the trigger. Many revolvers are dual-action, with admittedly more trigger resistance, meaning an experienced user could nearly as easily get off "rapid-fire" shots with a revolver.
If the press wants to shake the image of being biased as "liberal," they need to stop abusing language to make "conservative"-backed ideas sound scarier than they are.
2 comments:
Re-dic! Should we take a quick glance back through history and see what happens in societies where only cops and the military have guns?
Hopefully this sort of usurpation of rights causes more folks to ignore the State and its edicts.
It's the New York Times, what do you expect?
Holding a publication to a low standard helps quell the anger.
Post a Comment