What the blazes does THIS mean?
With Russert, yesterday, Mitt finally showed the Rockefeller, we think.
...Romney said he "would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality." [to ban them].
"I would have supported the original assault weapon ban," Romney said.
Here I always thought that "lethal" was an adjective which could not be modified upward too easily.
And, of course, "picture-book" definitions of weapons (looks bad="assault"; looks pretty= "OK") tells you something about Mitt's convictions.
It tells you he doesn't have any of them, for openers.
The AmSpec blog notes that Romney claims NRA support in his '02 Governor's run--but that they cannot find any evidence of that.
'Bye, Mitt!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I wonder what poses "extraordinary lethality". "Borrowing" from MadisonConservative's list at the Hot Air thread on this:
Is it a barrel shroud? The only thing it offers is a safe, natural place to grip the rifle for those with long arms.
Is it a bayonet clip? Yeah, that's REAL lethal outside the extra 5-10 inches the length of the rifle allows one to swing the blade.
Is it a pistol grip? Again, it doesn't help with the accuracy any.
Is it a flash suppressor? The only thing that does is save the eyesight of the shooter some.
Is it a folding stock? They're there to save weight and space, and telescoping stocks allow some length customization, especially for those of us with alligator arms. Not exactly "extraordinary".
Guess I was right when I derided Romney's son's choice in firearms (I said it was probably BB Ryder).
You'll shoot your eye out, kid!
Post a Comment