The Fudds will never understand

Dumbass Fudd David Petzal made some remarks about "black rifles" back in the runup to the Clinton Gun Ban:

"Gun owners -- all gun owners -- pay a heavy price for having to defend the availability of these weapons. "The American public -- and the gun-owning public; especially the gun-owning public -- would be better off without the hardcore military arms, which puts the average sportsman in a real dilemma".An Uzi or an AKM or an AK-47 should be no more generally available than a Claymore mine or a block of C4 explosive"

Now he is trying to slither out of his past comments. This from his blog today:

Here’s some other relevant information: When I wrote it, black guns were not nearly as important a part of shooting as they are now. We can’t afford to sacrifice them, just as we can’t afford to sacrifice .50-caliber rifles (which I wrote about positively a couple of issues ago in a story called “Way Out There”).

This proves that he still doesn't get it.

It doesn't matter one damn little bit how "important" a type of firearm is to shooting. We can't afford to sacrifice any of them ever!

The Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting or collecting or any other damn thing except creating a civilian population so heavily armed that any foreign government contemplating an invasion would think twice because of the losses they would take and no American government would dare attempt to oppress the population out of fear of what that heavily armed population would do to them.

That is the be-all and end-all of the Second Amendment. Live it, learn it, believe it.


PS - Please Mr. Petzal tell us what guns today are "not important enough" a part of shooting that we can afford to sacrifice them?