Originally Posted by That_Is_My_El_CaminoView Post
This about sums it up:
I preferred this excerpt:
Since semiautomatic hunting rifles are legal, gun lobbyists say, semiautomatic assault weapons should be legal too; both require a trigger pull for each shot. That's disingenuous. Assault rifles are not designed to shoot animals at a distance. Furthermore, they accept large magazines that permit sprays of rapid fire and are thus suited for human combat at close range.
That is odd. I know 2 Quakers and one of them has had an FFL since the late 80's while the other one is a gun nut. Was the author claiming that his religious orders view was an anti gun one?
I don't believe that the author ever mentioned it. In reference to the author's possible perspective in writing the article: while not absolute, being a Quaker and subscribing to the Peace Testimony might be a contributing factor in his bias against rifle designs that are used by military in armed conflicts, and not for hunting. That's all I was alluding to.
Then again, given you know two Quakers who are clearly not anti-gun, it might not be that big a factor.