Just a public service . . .

[blueridge3210]

4. Just a few thoughts:

I hope marketing works, otherwise someone is wasting money.

Very long article; lot's of attempts to gin up fear of "the other", those who would purchase so-called "Militarized weapons". First picture is of the .50 sniper rifle; with a note of "No meaningful regulation". Since it is a regulated as any other firearm and costs about $6,000+ and each shot costs about $10 I'm not sure how much more regulation is needed. Maybe I missed the huge number of drive by shootings and bodega' hold ups using the Barrett.

Next is the "manufacture, sale and/or import" of civilian version military rifles that would otherwise be illegal to sell to the public. In other words, functionally no different than any other legal semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun. Also the comment regarding how these weapons have "no legitimate sporting purpose". Apparently a walnut stock makes a weapon legitimate for sporting use; ugly plastic not so much.

It seems the author of the article's main problem is that the firearm industry is capable of manufacturing weapons that the public wants to buy and communicates that fact by way of advertising. I've read or viewed a number of marketing campaigns in print, radio or television; I've yet to be compelled to purchase something against my will. Perhaps people could be treated as competent adults capable of making their own choices in life.