Chinese Government, the World Leader in Democide, Recommends US Implement Gun Restrictions Laws

I originally posted the following information and commentary onto my Facebook wall…

Chinese Paper Says U.S. Should Learn from China, Restrict Guns, Protect Rights:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-guns/chinese-paper-says-u-s-should-learn-from-china-restrict-guns-protect-rights-idUSKCN1G703W

The United States should learn from China and “genuinely” protect human rights by restricting gun ownership, an editorial in a widely read state-run Chinese newspaper said on Friday.

The editorial in the Global Times newspaper was published after a massacre at a high school in Florida last week, in which 17 students and staff were killed, reignited a long-running debate about gun control in the United States.

(Read entire article here…)

My Commentary: Oh, the irony! The Chinese “Republic” is responsible for the largest #democide on record, in the last century, with a body count of about 70 million victims. Communism is one of the most murderous forms of government known to man. But, hey… it’s not RACIST like NAZISM, so… no big deal!

Mao’s Great Leap Forward ‘Killed 45 Million in Four Years’:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html

Debating the AR-15

The following debate originally took place on the Facebook wall of family…

Zayvier B.: This isn’t meant to spark any sort of mass argument, but only to expand a field of view. You cannot deny the use of the AR-15 as the primary weapon of more than half of our nation’s mass showings. With that being said, I want someone to tell me a use that only can come from an AR-15 that would demand it be kept in the homes of citizenry, and is a use ONLY the AR can fulfill

RaynReturning fire at one of these mass shooters you mention? As you said yourself, “[y]ou cannot deny the use of an AR-15 as the primary weapon in more than half of” these types of attacks.

Zayvier B.: Wrong, an AR isn’t the sole item that could be used to deter or defeat a shooter.

Rayn: I said “returning fire,” not “deter,” nor “defeat,” and I meant it in the most literal sense, imaginable…

Zayvier B.: I understand that, but my point was to state what makes the AR something so important and gives it a quality only it has. Any firearm could be used to return fire at any kind of assailant

RaynThen, my question is this: as an innocent human being (also, never charged with domestic violence, nor any felony) that would be engaging in peaceful activity (meaning that there is no actual victim) if I seek to obtain the firearm of my choice, what gives anyone else, but me, jurisdiction over my actions? Why am I to be restricted, so as not to have the exact weapon to defend myself that the criminal easily has at his disposal? Truly, “what makes the AR something so important” that I can’t use one to defend against one?