As Twitchy reported, the Associated Press recently sent out some guidance to its reporters on “assault weapons” that explained the difference between automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons. Reporters were even discouraged from using the term “assault weapon” as it didn’t have a clear definition.
We’ve done two or three posts already today about the AR-15 super-weapon that can, with just one round, leave an exit wound a foot wide, explode skulls on impact, vaporize bone, liquefy tissue, decapitate adults, and more. They’re useless for hunting because the deer will just explode into bone and fur. It’s been called the AR-15 “war weapon” by those who want to ban it.
Here’s another one: Tristan Snell, an attorney, refers to it as “an AR-15 automatic bullet machine.” If it were an automatic bullet machine, you wouldn’t even need anyone there to fire it — it would just start spraying bullets whenever children were around.
Pretty sure a "well regulated militia" does not cover an AR-15 automatic bullet machine that someone can operate to kill kids with no skill or training whatsoever.
— Tristan Snell (@TristanSnell) July 29, 2022
Snell’s a lawyer, so he’d know the meaning of “well-regulated militia.” If that’s the case, does he want only government-run militias to have such powerful super-weapons?
“AR15 automatic bullet machine” 😂
— H (@NyquilOlives) July 29, 2022
Automatic bullet machine?
— RWCham1959🇺🇲🇺🇲 (@rwchomeworks) July 30, 2022
This is one of them spoof accounts making fun of the left isn't it?
— Mark M1A Scout Squad (@pipsquack638) July 30, 2022
Recommended
Serious question: Who ties your shoes in the morning?
— Savvy (@SavvyUnleashed) July 30, 2022
Newsflash: you don't understand this topic
— Random Beer Snob (@OgrabmeNY) July 30, 2022
“Well regulated” means well functioning. Like a clock is regulated to keep time. Hence the AR-15 or it’s select fire variants are a perfect choice for a well-regulated militia. Which other firearm would you suggest?
— Internet News Agency (@InternetNewsAg2) July 30, 2022
What part of "shall not be infringed " don't you understand?
But thanks for sharing your opinion.— Eric Lowe (@EricLow69046856) July 30, 2022
Fun part, the right of the people to near arms, shall not be infringed.
People don't have to be militia to bear arms and arms means any weapon which shall not be infringed. So ALL politicians that vote to remove any arms break constitutional oaths.
— Justin Dutton (@JustinDutton18) July 30, 2022
If only the Supreme Court hadn’t already ruled on this *exact* issue in Heller.
— krittr 🏴☠️ (@krittr) July 30, 2022
I'm pretty sure it doesn't exclude them.
— Ben Soholt (bangers and mash/Lutefisk) (@BenjaminSoholt) July 30, 2022
— Borat (@KAZACHBORAT) July 30, 2022
“Pretty sure” isn’t good enough and tells us that You’re not sure what you’re even talking about.
— Madison (@Madisontx76) July 30, 2022
There is so much incorrect information in this tweet; I don’t even know where to begin…”Pretty sure” a lawyer would know more on this topic, but sadly, he does not.
— Drew256 (@DREW256LFC) July 30, 2022
The right to keep and bear arms does cover the AR-15, and it is not an automatic bullet machine.
— Thad 🇺🇸 (@Thad069) July 29, 2022
@BadWeaponTakes see this one yet?
— Tim_in_MI (@Tim_The_Sandman) July 30, 2022
Fortunately, not all lawyers just flat-out ignore the second half of the Second Amendment.
Related:
Congressman describes more of the destructive capabilities of the AR-15 super-weapon https://t.co/VBAOILZM8I
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) July 30, 2022
Join the conversation as a VIP Member