NY Lawmakers Condemn NRA Image of Photos and Bullets

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. Why these clueless lawmakers are being lame and moronic

During my college days on the rifle team, I would practice at the range about 3-4 times a week. That would generally consist of firing 1 round at each of 10 bulls-eyes on the paper target. I would generally go through 3-4 targets in the hour between classes during which I practiced. Doing the math, of which the legislative team of Persaud and Simon seems incapable, shows that 3-4 times a week I would use my ammo allotment for four and half years.

Now as for the media and their faux outrage, did they even consider that publishing articles that criticize gun owners for being insufficiently trained and other articles which champion laws seeking to restrict the ability of gun owners to actually train is a bit... what's the right term... ah yes, BULLSHIT COUNTER PRODUCTIVE BRAINLESS CRAP not to mention being hypocritical.

Now let's think about the actual image that caused the lawmaker's reaction and the breaking coverage from ABC. You write a proposed law (even if wasn't quite as inane as this one) and an opposition group is critical of your untrained ignorant action regarding bullets with an ad including pictures of the law's authors and bullets. Really? Should the NRA's ad have included pics of Dick Cheney and Hershery's Kisses?

For anyone curious to see the actual image here's a link:
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/nra-responds-to-ny-lawmakers-gun-safety-measure-by-decorating-their-faces-with-bullets/

I want to ask, what's behind the implied outrage? Is the implied outrage about an inferred and paranoid idea that maybe a picture next to some bullets calls for people to actually be targeted? One could infer this, if the topic of the law been peanut butter or shower shoes but the topic was BULLETS.

I have no idea whether the impetus for these articles by the media was a call from the lawmakers offices, a story from pro-control orgs or simply a reaction to the NRA's ad.

One of the most common bullets around is .22 LR. As odd as it may seem to people entirely ignorant of anything to do with firearms, these bullets are NOT sold individually. A $20 investment buys you 300-500. Some stores will sell boxes of 50. I inherited a .22 rifle from my dad. It features a fixed tube magazine with a capacity of 15 LR rounds. The proposed law says I could buy 30 rounds of ammo every 90 days. In practice would this mean I would have to wait and buy ammo at common multiples of 30 and 50? That is I can buy 3 50 round boxes every 450 days.

I suppose I could just buy 1 box of 50 rounds every 6 months but forgetting the entirely ridiculous aspects of this law, how would it ever be enforced? Maybe New York could follow Pennsylvania's example in post prohibition years and establish the New York Bullet Control Board and mandate that ammo could only be sold in bulk through state owned ammo stores. To continue the analogy, PA did allow 'beer distributors' to sell to the public but that's beer only so maybe an ammo distributor would only sell .22 and in addition a neighborhood bar could sell you a 6 pack. So by analogy, maybe next New Years New Yorkers would need to hit a range and have their revolvers reloaded with a "6 pack" before going to the back yard firing wildly into the air and yelling yea-ha.

Are you kidding me? How do a few bullets next to a photo "place a target around someone"?

Let's do something the media really seems to just suck at these days. Let's get the terms correct.
Target:


Bullet:


I read "news" articles often to learn about current events, crime, elections and politics. I look to other sources for humor. Perhaps this coverage should have been undertaken by comedy central or even a cartoon. You know those places where some pro-control folks go to get their "news".