Another One Bites The Dust

Florida Congressman Brian Mast, once a strong supporter of gun rights has abandoned his position.

U.S. Rep. Brian Mast announced support Friday for a series of gun control measures, breaking with the National Rifle Association and underscoring the political impact of the Parkland school killings last week.

Mast, R-Palm City, whose race for re-election this fall is expected to be one of the most closely watched in the nation, had been considered a staunch opponent of gun control. A 2016 campaign video quoted him expressing support for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which grants Americans the right to bear arms, and saying recent mass shootings “all could have been prevented were there people present who were prepared to defend themselves.”

He added: “I don’t want to live in a country where criminals are the only ones that have access to guns.”

Now he wants to live in a country where criminals have firearms which are superior to law abiding citizens.   For those who may question why a semi-automatic rifle is needed for home defense, check out this Detroit mother who used one after three thugs kicked in her back door trying to get to her.

In an opinion piece published in The New York Times on Friday, however, Mast said he supports a ban on assault weapons, expanding background checks for gun sales and raising the minimum age of gun purchasers. He also said he opposes modifications, called “bump stocks,” that turn semi-automatic rifles into fully automatic ones.

Mast said he opposes allowing those barred from flying because of terrorism concerns from purchasing guns, and he backs lifting the ban on federal research into gun violence as a public health threat.

The congressman, a U.S. Army veteran who lost both legs and a finger during an explosion in Afghanistan, pointed to the extensive military training he received with a weapon similar to the one used in the Parkland killings in arguing against giving civilians access “to the best killing tool the Army could put in my hands.”

If the M4 is the best killing tool the Army could put in his hands, then why are they wanting to replace it?   In talking with Marines who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, they said the 5.56 x45 (223) was an inferior round compared to the 7.62×39 which the AK-47 shot.

He wrote: “I cannot support the primary weapon I used to defend our people being used to kill children I swore to defend.”

Mast said he continues to believe the Second Amendment is “unimpeachable.”

“I accept, however, that it does not guarantee that every civilian can bear any and all arms,” he said.

I wonder what oath he swore?  There’s noting in the Oath of Enlistment or Oath of Office where you swear to defend anyone.   You swear to defend the Constitution of the United States.   Apparently he’s forgotten that.

“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This entry was posted in Misc. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Another One Bites The Dust

  1. d00mguy says:

    “If the M4 is the best killing tool the Army could put in his hands,”

    It’s because the M4 isn’t, it’s a carbine designed to take targets at shorter ranges than the M16, and it’s being foisted upon soldiers in an environment where long range engagements are common (Afghanistan). It’s the whiz kids in big army trying to get their troops killed. I’d rather them make the M16A4 the standard US issue rifle.

    And the 5.56×45 isn’t a bad round not even compared to the 7.62×39, it’s given a bad reputation when you use SS109 (steel core penetrator rounds) against unarmored targets as opposed to ball ammunition.

  2. d00mguy says:

    Oh and what happened to these so-called republicans suddenly supporting gun control?

    Follow the money.

    Millionaire “republican donors” are saying they will refuse to fund republican candidates unless they support gun control.

    That’s who their real constituents are. Not us.

  3. Deplorable B Woodman says:

    About as much principle and spine as a jellyfish. And that’s an insult to jellyfish.

  4. redneckgeezer says:

    This Republican’t is a worthless turd who has no clue what swearing an oath really means. I swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution three times and I still believe what I said.
    Go back to an M-14. Or a gas operated rifle in .308. You’d be better off. The only thing good in the 556 is the amount of ammo you can hump around with you. But, I’m no expert, so I should just shut up.

Comments are closed.