So, Of Course The Washington Post Is Calling For The Ban Of “Weapons Of War”

This is all they know how to do. This is what they want to do. Ban “assault weapons”, then move on to banning other weapons and ownership. Because it works well in California and Chicago

Ban these weapons of war


That the suspected 19-year-old gunman in the Florida shooting was able to legally purchase an AR-15 rifle despite concerns about his mental health, a social media fixation with guns, alleged involvement with a white-nationalist group and boasts about killing animals underscores the complete failure of America’s political class to come to grips — or even to try to come to grips — with gun violence. Said teacher Melissa Falkowski, who sheltered 19 students in a classroom closet during the shooting, “The frustration is that we did everything that we were supposed to do . . . and still to have so many casualties. . . . I feel today like our government, our country has failed us and failed our kids and didn’t keep us safe.”

No question there were several factors contributing to Wednesday’s shooting. The accused shooter is a troubled young man with a history of discipline problems. Those who knew him, as well as people in law enforcement, appear to have responded inadequately to signs of danger.

Sounds more like a problem with the person, not the gun. Oh, and it’s interesting that blame was placed on the people who knew him.

But here is the key fact: This country has no monopoly on troubled young men. We have no monopoly on hate groups. We aren’t the only place where people miss signs of danger in troubled young men. What distinguishes the United States from the developed world is our open market in the weaponry of war — in weapons whose chief purpose and selling point is their obscene ability to kill as many people as possible in the shortest burst of time.

Should we ban six shooters? How about bows and arrows? Knives? Swords? They are all weapons of war. The burst thing is cute, an attempt to make people think that the guns are automatic. Citizens are mostly forbidden from having the types of gun actually used by the military, ones which can shoot more than one bullet with each pull of the trigger.

Is it any surprise that the weapon used in this week’s carnage was the same style of semiautomatic assault rifle that was used with deadly efficiency at a concert in Las Vegas, a Texas church, an Orlando nightclub, a Connecticut elementary school? These weapons designed for combat, accompanied by multiple ammunition magazines, have become the weapons of choice for mass shooters. It is time for a national ban on their sale and possession. Now, before the next set of parents face the unimaginable agony of the phone call that never gets answered.

All weapons are designed for combat. That’s why they’re called “weapons.” The last assault weapons ban did not work. The latest incarnation wouldn’t, either. And people could still get the exact same gun in a separate form. Just because it’s not scary looking doesn’t mean it won’t fire the same bullets at the same rate of fire (one per trigger pull).

Say, maybe if the Washington Post’s buddies in Hollywood and the entertainment industry could stop glorifying the use of assault weapons in gratuitous ways in their movies and tv shows. Oh, and perhaps the Democratic dominated education system could stop destroying morals, start teaching responsibility, stop teaching “if it feels good, do it”, and end the idiocy of teaching kids to take great action when one is Offended.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

38 Responses to “So, Of Course The Washington Post Is Calling For The Ban Of “Weapons Of War””

  1. Jeffery says:

    Give it up. You’ve already lost this argument.

    You’re accusing the US military of falling for gun manufacturer marketing.

    As the article points out, the easy availability of these firearms is only part of the problem. Your dismissal of grieving parents as “gun grabbers” is disgusting and small. You should be ashamed.

    Again you post the photoshopped picture misrepresenting the differences between these firearms.

    Do you work for the NRA?

    • formwiz says:

      That “photoshopped” picture isn’t the issue.

      How’s ’bout we toss all the Lefty nonsense about not putting these people in asylums once they’ve told the world they want to kill people?

      All these maniacs had one thing in common. The law knew they were time bombs.

    • How is it misrepresenting, Jeff? They’re both .223/5.56. They shoot at exactly the same rate, one bullet per trigger pull. You can put large capacity magazines in each, though the lower comes with a 5 round mag. They can both accept shrouds/flash suppressors. You can attach a bayonet to each. Really, the only difference is what the bodies are made of. And the top one is a lot lighter, making it easier for women to carry to defend themselves. Why do you want women to be raped and murdered by disallowing them a gun to protect themselves?

  2. Jeffery says:

    Interesting meme developing on the right now, that movies and media are causing these mass killers to choose assault weapons and shoot dozens of Americans.

    According to the right, it’s not that mass shooters select AR-15 assault weapons as a people killing tool, but rather they select them because of movies, video games and cable shows.

    Yet, studies show that other nations have even greater exposure to violent content than does the US. Why don’t these nations suffer mass shootings with AR-15 every few weeks?

    You and tRump spend all your energy tracking down and deporting Mexicans as a PR stunt, yet young Americans are dying.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Love that “studies show x” meme the angry little black guy throws out without citing even a single one.
      His ignorance is staggering.
      Maybe an inherent trait of his race.

  3. Professor Hale says:

    It’s the same old story. Nothing new here. Making any one type of gun illegal won’t make it stop any more than making carrying guns on school property made it stop. Making guns is 14th century technology. Any 12 year old can make one using simple tools. Arguing about rates of fire only adds stupid to the argument. The fact is, People are easy to kill. The only reason we don’t have more of this is that most people are not psychopaths. This 19 year old man was. The “right wing” is not willing to compromise on this issue because they learned from the left wing that they are NEVER satisfied. They get half the loaf and then come back for another half. And another. There are lots of places in the USA with strong gun controls. They fail at reducing violence.

  4. Jeffery says:


    And we understand that the American right/NRA will not willingly concede this issue. That’s why it’s a political issue and will only be resolved that way, if at all.

    If Congress enacted a law banning assault weapons, and the Supreme Court affirmed the Constitutionality, would you obey the law of the land or resist?

  5. Jeffery says:

    Clearly, the killer had a worrisome online profile, that combined with his weaponry, should have triggered a response.

    What should that response be in an free and open society like America?

  6. johnny gee says:

    Jefferies biggest lie is that mass killings are strictly an American phenomena.

    • Jeffery says:

      Gee johnny,

      We’re sorry you misunderstood the obvious point, that mass shootings are largely an American phenomenon. By all means, cite examples of mass shootings amongst the other 7,000,000,000 Earthlings, we’re certain you can find some. We remember the racist right-winger Brevik murdering nearly 100, mostly children, in Norway.

      Why are American men so overrepresented in mass shootings? We make up only about 2% of the world’s population but are the triggermen of so many mass shootings.

      Why? Is our easy access to military style weaponry? Are American men more unstable than the other 98% of the world’s population?

      Can we all admit that the easy access to these weapons are at least part of the problem?

      • formwiz says:

        Moslem crazies commit murder all over the world.

        Several rather nasty ones have occurred in Russia. Then there’s Scotland. And Mexico.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          And France.

          3 in 2015.
          But no one expects the angry little black boy to find his own examples.

  7. Dana says:

    “(D)espite concerns about his mental health?” What concerns were those? Was he evaluated by mental health professionals and had any sort of officially logged restrictions put in place? Nope! He was a ‘discipline problem,’ and expelled from school, but that’s it. Jeffrey noted that “the killer had a worrisome online profile, that combined with his weaponry, should have triggered a response.” It did trigger a response, in that someone reported it to the FBI, which did nothing. After all of those killers in the past, after whom it was lamented, “Why didn’t somebody say something,” someone did say something, but still nothing was done. There were no interventions taken, there were no attempts to somehow place him on a list which would have led to his failure to pass a background check, none of the (few) actions which could have been taken were taken.

    He had no criminal background, and he had no mental health issues which were reported to law enforcement and led to due process which would have barred him from buying a weapon.

    • Jeffery says:

      The FBI said they contacted the would be murderer but didn’t have grounds for further action. In hindsight they should have locked him up, but they deemed he had not committed any crimes up to that point.

      The killer purchased his mass shooting rifle (MSR) a year ago.

      Are you thinking stringent universal background checks are now appropriate? Would reaching the level of being investigated by the FBI for violent tendencies warrant preventing one from legally purchasing an MSR?

      Do you agree that there are American men who should not have these sorts of weapons?

      If so, contact your representatives.

      • gitarcarver says:

        The FBI said they contacted the would be murderer but didn’t have grounds for further action. In hindsight they should have locked him up, but they deemed he had not committed any crimes up to that point.


        The agency in a statement admitted receiving a call on Jan. 5, 2018 from a person close to Cruz who contacted the FBI through its Public Access Line tipline to express concerns about Cruz’s erratic behavior and disturbing social media posts.

        “Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life,” the statement said. “We have determined that these protocols were not followed for the information received by the PAL on January 5.”

        In concluded that the caller’s information was not forwarded to the Miami FBI field office and “no further investigation was conducted at the time.” FBI Director Christopher Wray said the Bureau would review what had happened.

        So once again, we have protocols and laws that are in place that are not followed and people on the left want more laws.

        The fact of the matter is that the kid was allowed to walk onto a campus, shoot a bunch of people, walk away, order a drink at a Subway and no one on the scene was able to stop him as he was a wolf amongst the unarmed sheep.

        Even the security guard was unarmed.

        That’s insane yet the left, who only has hate, hates guns more than they do the laws they promote that end up killing more people.

      • Dana says:

        The police had ‘visited’ Mr Cruz 39 times. He was expelled for assaulting another student, the new boyfriend of the girl who had dumped him. Yet he was never arrested, not even once. Vandalism, theft, even being a peeping tom, all things that private citizens knew of and reported, yet not once did public officials do their f(ornicating) jobs.

        Every major news organization was able to dig up all of this information on Mr Cruz, within hours, yet the FBI couldn’t? Well, who knows, maybe they were too busy trying to cover up trying to rig the election for Hillary Clinton, who was a guaranteed winner anyway.

        Kind of makes you wonder: if local authorities and the FBI all dropped the ball on young Mr Cruz, was this an isolated failure, or are there other young men out there who are just as messed up in the head, contemplating going out in a blaze of glory for shooting up their schools, who ought to have been in the juvenile ‘justice’ system, who ought to have prior criminal records, able to buy weapons legally because no one did their jobs?

        If there is one bright spot in all of this, it’s that rather than going out in a blaze of glory, instead of committing suicide by cop, young Mr Cruz was captured alive, and the insignificant little pipsqueak — the pictures show him as being much smaller than his female public defender — is now going to be locked up for the rest of his miserable life. Maybe that’ll convince the next potential school shooter that there’s no glory at all in this.

      • A background check wouldn’t have done a thing, because no one was entering the information into the federal database. The police came to his house 39 times since 2010. There were all these reports about his conduct. If the existing laws would be applied correctly, we could cut down on the number who get guns when they shouldn’t, like for instance, those not reported by the military when they should have. They just submitted over 4,000 to the database.

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    …someone reported it to the FBI, which did nothing.

    Au contraire, Dana.

    The FBI has been busy chasing the Russia, Russia, Russia meme while, along with the DOJ, attempting a silent coup against a duly elected President.
    However, they seem to be failing at that too.

  9. Dana says:

    Private citizens did the right thing, reporting Nikolas Cruz to the police several times, for theft, for vandalism, but for some reason, Mr Cruz had no criminal record, which enabled him to buy a weapon legally. Mr Cruz had been treated at a mental health clinic, but there was no record of that in any form which showed up on a background check to buy a firearm.

    Had the school which expelled him for assaulting his ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend reported this to law enforcement, he could have had a criminal record which would have prevented him from (legally) purchasing an AR-15, but incompetent school officials didn’t do their jobs. Had the police, which received numerous complaints about him, gotten prosecutors to charge him with something, he might have had a criminal record; no one did anything. Had the FBI, which had a report concerning his messages on social media, done something to raise a red flag on an instant background check, he’d have had to find another way to shoot up the school, and might not have managed it.

    Why the f(ornicate) do we need more gun control laws when the laws already on the books, ones which might have stopped Mr Cruz from buying a weapon, were never enforced?

  10. Jeffery says:

    All weapons are designed for combat.

    Um, no. AR-15 style rifles are designed for combat, for killing as many humans as rapidly as possible. That’s why mass shooters favor them.

    Hunting rifles, e.g., Remington 700 bolt action are not designed for killing as many humans as rapidly as possible. Most shotguns, e.g., Remington 1100 semi-auto are not designed for killing as many humans as rapidly as possible.

    No, there are differences between the mass shooting rifles (MSRs) and other firearms used for hunting or self defense. You just refuse to admit for ideological reasons.

  11. Kevin S TX says:

    Please stop feeding the troll. Our Natl’ Parks post signs with this message “please do not Feed the Animals”. Because they become dependent on hand outs(soros).

  12. Stosh says:

    Assault weapons are already illegal, automatic weapons have been for decades. No self-respecting soldier would go to war with a semi-auto weapon as his main firepower.

    • Jeffery says:

      Um, no. Full auto Assault RIFLES are heavily regulated. Assault weapons, the semi-auto version, is widely and easily available. Mass shooters like them for their convenience in killing dozens of humans in a short amount of time.

      The right claims that mass shooters use them ’cause movies.

      • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

        “Assault weapons” was a term coined by the Brady campaign to conflate NFA controlled weapons with visually similar firearms in the 80’s. The Brady’s goal was and is total elimination of civilian arms and this is a hook to use the “sporting purpose” in the ’68 GCA to ban import and to fool the gullible and stupid. The MSM and much of our permanent bureaucracy uses this propaganda term because they share the same goals as the Brady’s. When you hear someone use the propaganda term “assault weapon” you know that you are dealing with a moron or a liar with a false premise. It’s just as dishonest as the “gunshow loophole” propaganda.

        • Jeffery says:

          And your semantic games continue… What’s next? Will you assault someone for saying clip instead of magazine?

          The bad news is that the “assault weapon” is standard lexicon now, and everyone knows exactly what it means. Including mass shooters, who favor them for making it easier to shoot lots of kids.

          What NRA/gun manufacturer propaganda term do you prefer? Modern Sporting Rifles (MSR)? LOFL. Makes sense if your sport is shooting children.

          We like MSR too, Mass Shooting Rifles.

          Do you agree with TEACH that the gun manufacturers’ lobbying arm (NRA) has fooled the world’s militaries into spending billions on assault rifles?

  13. Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

    You engage in lies because you don’t have cogent arguments.

  14. Bill589 says:

    An important part of the answer for school mass violence is to allow the schools to defend themselves.
    If the teachers and other good people in the school could carry, there would have been far fewer good people dead.

    And possibly most importantly, the common knowledge that people at the school could be armed would stop most assaults before they happened.
    “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” – George Washington
    Still true.

Pirate's Cove