It would take a lot of “shots” of Budweiser to kill a man. It would take only one shot from a ghost gun to do it.
What a ridiculous analogy.
1. Use either illegally, and you endanger the safety of others.
2. Both can be used safely and legally by far, far more people than the person who chooses to drive drunk or the criminal using a gun.
3. "One shot from a ghost gun" is different than one shot from any other gun in what way?
4. If the current ghost guns scare you then you'll be terrified to know that literally millions and millions of rifles and shotguns were legally manufactured without serial numbers prior to 1968. Apparently old ghosts don't count.
I am one of those folks who learned to shoot at age 7. I have been a gun owner all life after leaving the Corps in 1969. As a responsible gun owner I do not object to reasonable regulations of fir areas.
Well, I learned to shoot at age 5 and was given my first gun (Browning A5) at eleven when an uncle passed away. Bought my first pistol (Remington Model 51) at age 16 and a Ruger 10/22 a month later. But whether someone was shooting machine guns at age three, a veteran or a police officer has NOTHING to do with anything......the Second Amendment's protection is for all of us. And its not about duck hunting, so I could give a crap about all the responsible hunters who don't like scary guns like AK's or AR's.
As a responsible gun owner I'm responsible for MY actions, MY use, MY firearms. Being a responsible gun owner has absolutely nothing to do with the type of firearm I own or use. It means safe handling, safe storage and proper care and maintenance.
But sadly, you and too many others throw out your gun owner credentials and background as a means of bolstering your credibility before you proffer your support of "reasonable regulation of firearms"........which is horsehockey. What "reasonable regulation of firearms" really means......it means what the anti gunners want it to mean. Moms Demand Action, The Brady Campaign, etc ......switched their marketing from "ban guns" to "reasonable regulation" because its more palatable to the public, a public that is ignorant of their true mission. They failed miserably with that tactic, now seek to be "reasonable". While their aim is to ban guns outright, they hope that the populace is too stupid to remember their stance twenty years ago. Remember Handgun Control, Inc.? How about the National Coalition to Ban Handguns renamed in 1990 as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence? All renamed, but same intent.
For the billionth time.....It isn't a gun problem, its a people problem. The problem people are criminals. Their illegal use of firearms is miniscule compared to those who use firearms lawfully. No matter what 1942bull, Moms Demand Action, Brady Campaign and Joe Biden put forth as "reasonable regulation of firearms".....the criminals and nutjobs will still obtain guns, still rob and murder, still violate the law. Theose "reasonable regulations" means nothing to a criminal because.....he's a criminal. Do you understand that?
If we applied your rationale to individuals making bombs, it would not be reasonable to make manufacturing explosives that do not have legally required ID pellets in them. Personally, I prefer that if someone wants to make a bomber and set it off that the pellets be there, because then it can help get back to the perp.
Wow.
