A Message from Jim Prince: “‘Assault Weapons’ Bans ‘Hoopla’ is akin to racism”

I have come to the conclusion that the entire “assault weapons” ban hoopla is akin to racism. Every proposed ban I have seen is looking to ban a particular style of firearm based solely on its appearance, judging not on what it does but merely on how it looks, just as a racist judges another person on how they look and not on the contents of their character.

I can go purchase a Winchester semi-automatic model 100 hunting rifle chambered in .308 caliber with its 10 round magazine, wooden stock and fore grip and it will not be included in any of the proposed bans. I can also go purchase an American Spirit Arms ASA16 AR-15 model rifle chambered in .308 caliber with its 10 round magazine and black stock and fore grip and it will be included in every one of the proposed bans. Now both these firearms function in exactly the same manner, one round of ammunition is expended each time the trigger is pulled; the magazines insert and drop out similarly, the caliber of the ammunition is identical and the round that is fired in one can be fired in the other. So why is one on the list to be banned and not the other??? Very good question, since the only difference in them is the way they look one has to gather that one is scary looking and the other is not, so the scary looking one is bad and must be banned.
So, just as a racist judges others on their appearance the gun ban coalition is judging firearms on the way they look!

Note from Dean: I love sharing the ideas and opinions of our readers. The D.C. Clothesline is committed to being a source for the people to be heard. I would like to thank Jim for stepping up to the plate and knocking this one out of the park. Molon Labe!

Follow The D.C. Clothesline on Facebook.

About Dean Garrison

Dean Garrison is a husband and father of six, who faithfully pursues the American Dream. He has been MOSTLY self-employed for the last 20+ years and has been a top earner, executive and leader for several direct sales companies.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to A Message from Jim Prince: “‘Assault Weapons’ Bans ‘Hoopla’ is akin to racism”

  1. Jim I don’t know if you will look at the comments but I wanted to tell you…very well done. I would take 4 or 5 articles from readers any day over the same old stuff. This is what I always wanted this blog to be about…real people with real wisdom who are kind enough to share it with the rest of us. Thank You so much.

  2. lreene says:

    Don’t let them fool you. They are trying to make people think that they are only interested in banning the “scary looking AR-15 military style assault rifle” by showing it’s picture. But if you listen carefully, or read carefully what they are actually saying, they are including ALL semi-automatic firearms in their proposed bans. Mark my word, that is what they are after they just know better than to come out and say it.

    • Jim Prince says:

      I will not argue with your hypothesis, I believe there are many who seek just what you express, however as you said, they know that would not have a pleasant outcome. All the proposals I have read are only going after those ugly,scary, and just plain old dispicable black firearms with barrel shrouds and pistol grips.

  3. Carlos Helms says:

    The dumbos in BigGov DC considered a double-action revolver “semi-automatic” as recently as last year.

  4. Lehmon Baxley says:

    They will “start” with the scariest looking, but as Diane Fienstien said: she would take ALL OF THEM if she could get the votes. IF they get the scariest ones banned the will be back for more after the next mass shooting.

  5. Moogie says:

    You do know that your extremism and glorification of guns is exactly what swayed people to vote Obama to a second term?

    • Carlos Helms says:


      Think about what you just said.

      Maybe paranoia and the pathological fear of guns drove crazies to vote for Obama; but I certainly wouldn’t lay the blame at Dean’s door…or at others accused of “glorifying” guns. It seems to me that very few of the 90,000,000 firearms owners “glorify” their firearms.

      Only a crazy would make a claim that protecting my private property and being responsible for my own safety is “extremism.”

      Honestly, the more the crazies make such grandiose statements; the more I feel the need to protect myself. They walk among us…and they VOTE!

  6. This is just the beginning…they will start with the scary, ugly ones and move on from there…it’s the game plan for them…and no Moogie….extremism and glorification of guns is NOT what got Obama elected a second time…it’s all those freebies that the WORKING American people have to pay for that got him re-elected…you should pay more attention to some of the interviews by these people…I’m not for real sure they know what day it is much less anything else…

  7. Bret says:

    I just find it funny that my Remington model 700 .308 isnt on the list. Black carbon fiber, larger caliber than the .223, threat from a 1000 yards. An assault rifle is good for hunting, especially speedy game. I cant Duck hunt with a .308, I can’t boar hunt with a .308, Deer hunting with it, I better take a damn good shot.
    (its not that hunting with it cant be done, its that its a fuckin cannon).

    I would rather have the Plywood and Steel configuration of any weapon. These guns are not meant for hunting. They are not meant as a tool to feed myself. My .308 isnt in the garage next to my tackle box and fishing pole. They are meant to stop someone, anyone, in their tracks from causing myself or even another fellow American harm. They are meant to bring an armed soldier on my streets to an early retirement.

  8. Auntie Lo says:

    My letter to my senators (feel free to use any protion of it that fits)

    I am writing you to encourage you to stand up for our right to bear arms without infringement as expressed in the Constitution of the United States and more strongly stated in the Constitution of the State of Maine (Article I, Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.).

    In fact Article I, Section 1 states:
    “Natural rights. All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”

    I have found several reports that find that restricting firearms from law-abiding citizens is correlated to increasing rates of armed violence. Criminals will still have guns.
    The regular people in this country cannot afford to hire armed protection, we have to protect ourselves. We must be able to do so in the manner that we think necessary. If I should purchase an AR-15, I assure you that it will not be an “assault” weapon, it will be a personal protective weapon. Only I can decide if I need that.

    Therefore, I do NOT support any weapons bans. Ultimately I believe that the writers of the US Constitution intended the militia (that is the people) to be able to protect themselves with weapons, similar to those that a governmental force might have, as a check on governmental tyranny. After all, the first shot in the War for Independence was fired to prevent the British from removing the weapons in the hands of the citizens of Massachusetts.

    Furthermore, I oppose any permanent collection of who owns which guns. In particular the National Firearms Act imposes exceptionally onerous burdens in paperwork, fees, and potentially self “incrimination” in a manner that infringes on a citizen’s right to own and operate weapons.

    One argument that I have heard made to support gun restrictions is that other people need to feel safe. I can relate to that need, a former boyfriend once tried to kill me (he was suspended from college for a few weeks). I lived in fear until I figured out a few truths: 1) I should allow no one that power over my life as, 2) it is my responsibility to care for myself in such a way that I do not fear the jerks of the world, and 3) the policemen’s role is to apprehend miscreants after a crime has been committed. I do not want us heading into “innocent until proven guilty territory”. Even the potential jerks of the world don’t deserve that.

    We have tried banning guns from public spaces, our “gun free zones”. Those zones seem to attract insane individuals who seek to harm and kill others. The federal government should drop that requirement of our public schools and allow the local school board to decide how to best protect their students.

    Our government’s role should be limited to allow the people the liberty to live as they chose to live.

    Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s