The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,715 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Saw this and just laughed. So her issue is that traditional rifles are easier to use than tactical rifles, so there is no reason for "assualt rifles" for women to have for protection. Now think about it, just yesterday, Leon Pannetta stated that women can now be aloud to serve in combat units such as infantry. Well Miss Well Informed, what type of weapon is used in the military and has been used in the armed forces by thousands of women. So if traditional weapons are better suited for women to handle, why are not women issued an Mi4.

http://freebeacon.com/mccarthy-traditional-rifles-easier-for-women-to-use-than-assault-weapons/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
typical lefty !!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,547 Posts
PIERS MORGAN: I have an interview coming up with two young women who wrote a piece in which they said they wanted the rights of the AR-15 weapon at home because they feared they would be attacked and they wanted a gun that would guarantee they would murder or would kill their attacker. How do you respond to that particular argument, which is they believe under their second amendment right they should be allowed an AR-15?
Anyone else catch the flaw here? Murder their attacker? I thought the Brit's were supposed to have so much better knowledge of the English langauge than us Americans...

Murder (noun): The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Spin, spin, spin, spin...I'm getting dizzy from it...



Spin, spin, spin, spin...
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top