peacefuljeffrey 0 #101 August 31, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhat about Bazookas? To my knowledge, bazookas are quite legal to own. It's a tube with a handle. Nonetheless, it's an apples and handgrenades argument to compare so-called "assault weapons" to destructive devices, or any other object covered by the National Firearms Act. As it stands now, NFA firearms are out of the grasp of most law-abiding citizens simply due to the prohibitive price tags. You know what's funny? I have observed that only pro-gun people have any idea or understanding about most of the stuff you mentioned. If you talk to any typical anti-gun "hoplophobe," you find out very quickly just how ignorant they are about most anything related to guns -- whether it's laws that apply to them, or technical terms and function. Say "NFA" to an anti-gunner and he'll cock his head and have a quizzical "what's that?" expression on his face. Say "class III" and you get the same. I once asked an anti-gun friend's anti-gun dad for a quick definition of "semi-automatic weapon" when he had just said that he supported the "assault-weapons ban," and he made the "rifle motion" with his hands and said, "When you pull the trigger it goes buddabuddabuddabuddabudda...!" (imitating automatic fire) I said, "Thank you, you just proved to me that you support this law without even knowing what it does or doesn't do." I then explained to him that the weapons covered were "one pull, one bullet." I'll bet he's by now (9 years later) gone and forgotten all of what I taught him that night in favor of the simplistic "guns bad" mantra that is spewed at him up there in New York. Why let understanding be what causes you to be either pro or anti gun? It's just funny to me how you can predetermine that if someone is anti-gun, they know next to nothing factual about guns. Maybe it's because by the time they learn how they do, in fact, work, they switch from anti-gun to pro-gun. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #102 August 31, 2004 So sad, but so true. I got to give it to them, the Brady Bunch and the twats at the Violence Policy Center have done a wonderful job of maliciously misrepresenting the facts to further their fantastical agenda of somehow eliminating the existence of firearms in a nation created and liberated through the use firearms. Fueled by elitist politicians and piped freely by the liberal media into the living rooms of the uninformed, ghetto-thug-fearing, middle-American populace, those organizations have preyed on ignorance for a very long time. When the evening news' misinformation ends, Hollywood is right there to pick up the slack with it's movies and prime-time TV crime dramas--not one of which have I ever seen to accurately portray the reality of firearms--to stir the imagination into frenzy. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #103 August 31, 2004 QuoteQuoteFor one, they're not arms, they're ordinance. The 2nd calls for a "regulated" militia. Meaning, regulations regarding the types of arms is permitted. However, since we are talking about state militias, it should be regulated by individual states, not the federal government. As I have read it, historians and Constitutional experts read "well-regulated" simply to mean "properly functioning" -- NOT "falling under regulations"! It's not about being permitted to have X or Y, it's about being in good working order. The term's definition as you are applying it is not correct. Blue skies, - Well, the definition I'm applying is the same stance the NRA holds and what the Supreme Court has stated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #104 August 31, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteFor one, they're not arms, they're ordinance. The 2nd calls for a "regulated" militia. Meaning, regulations regarding the types of arms is permitted. However, since we are talking about state militias, it should be regulated by individual states, not the federal government. "Arms Control", "Arms Race", "Call to arms", etc., includes all types of weapons, even WMDs. I think your definition is overly restrictive and should only apply to "small arms".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #105 August 31, 2004 QuoteI think your definition is overly restrictive and should only apply to "small arms". Agreed, and if you read the federalist papers, you'd see that's what they meant by arms in the 2nd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #106 August 31, 2004 Kev, to my knowledge, no Supreme Court has ruled precisely on the exact line for the Second Amendment (no balancing act, no simple test). According to Miller, only weapons applicable to the militia are protected, and "sporting firearms" are not. (try telling THAT to VPC or Brady) That would mean short barrels, burst fire, unlimited mags, etc are not to be messed with by the government. Of course, anti gun people don't like to let laws get in their way, but that's another discussion. Also, regulated, as understood by the framing fathers, meant 'in good working order, properly funcitoning, orderly,' as Jeffrey correctly pointed out. edit: My understanding is that 2nd A was meant to recognize the right of the populace to be armed in a similar way to infantry of the Army. Today, as I see it, that would mean rifles equal to the M-4, SAWs, the M-278(number?) grenade launcher. I don't know which side of the line an RPG would fall on, but on must admit that few militias can operate without them.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #107 September 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteI think your definition is overly restrictive and should only apply to "small arms". Agreed, and if you read the federalist papers, you'd see that's what they meant by arms in the 2nd. While I agree they expressed themselves concerning rifles, pistols, other single soldier weapons, I question whether that limits the discussion to rifles. I simply cannot think of an example of a larger single soldier weapons system. There were rifles, and there were cannons, and not much in between. Accordingly, I would state that artillery, and crew served weapons, are not covered by the second amendment. I would state unequivocalby that all "guns" are covered, not matter their look or operation. Mortars are more difficult, but I would state that they are not included in the rights recognized by the second amendment (recognized, not granted). RPGs, small tank-killers, etc, are more difficult to decide because they don't fit neatly into either seciton, they straddle the delineations. Seeing as the framers tended to recognize more rather than less on every occasion, I say RPGs should be covered, but could be argued either way. (if it's not covered by an amendment specifically, that doesn't necessarily mean it must be banned, but try telling THAT to congress)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #108 September 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think your definition is overly restrictive and should only apply to "small arms". Agreed, and if you read the federalist papers, you'd see that's what they meant by arms in the 2nd. While I agree they expressed themselves concerning rifles, pistols, other single soldier weapons, I question whether that limits the discussion to rifles. I simply cannot think of an example of a larger single soldier weapons system. There were rifles, and there were cannons, and not much in between. Accordingly, I would state that artillery, and crew served weapons, are not covered by the second amendment. I would state unequivocalby that all "guns" are covered, not matter their look or operation. Mortars are more difficult, but I would state that they are not included in the rights recognized by the second amendment (recognized, not granted). RPGs, small tank-killers, etc, are more difficult to decide because they don't fit neatly into either seciton, they straddle the delineations. Seeing as the framers tended to recognize more rather than less on every occasion, I say RPGs should be covered, but could be argued either way. (if it's not covered by an amendment specifically, that doesn't necessarily mean it must be banned, but try telling THAT to congress) How can any militia be effective if it is denied weaponry appropriate to its time?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #109 September 1, 2004 QuoteHow can any militia be effective if it is denied weaponry appropriate to its time? I'm just talking about what the amendment says. The framers didn't have anything between firearms and crew served artillery, so their guidance doesn't cover this. To be effective, a militia does not need RPGs, but they would certainly be useful against what you would call the military.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #110 September 3, 2004 10 days 3 hours 36 minutes Does anyone at all think they'll get their extension? If they don't, what's around the corner? Think there's an even more heinous law brewing? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #111 September 3, 2004 Quote 10 days 3 hours 36 minutes Does anyone at all think they'll get their extension? If they don't, what's around the corner? Think there's an even more heinous law brewing? Jim Shit, there's always a more heinous law brewing. I read somewhere that in every legislative session, there is a proposed Constitutional amendment attempted that says, "The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." It never goes anywhere, and hasn't a prayer of passing, but there are shitwads in Congress who actually want it to be a reality, and so propose it every time even despite its inevitable doom. These are the people who need to be removed from office, because they truly do not want good laws for America. They are trying to kill it. edit P.S. It's hilarious to me how the Democrats aren't willing to touch this issue at all before the election. It just proves those pussies don't have the strength of their convictions. They blab on and on with bullshit polls that claim that even gun owners support the AWB, and that 78% or whatever of Americans want stricter gun laws and want the ban renewed. If this were even remotely true, then it would be a popular issue to harp on in an election year to garner more of this supposed popular support. Does anyone wonder why they don't go anywhere within ten miles of it? It's because they know they've been full of shit all along about the alleged popularity of gun control. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #112 September 3, 2004 Quote 10 days 3 hours 36 minutes I had forgotten the countdown! It is way closer, since the last time I took notice of it! Wow! I can't wait! My plan is to get a bunch of cheap genuine Glock full cap .40 cal magazines. Maybe even a G22 to go with my G27. I'm very psyched for the return of our rights. Blue skies, --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #113 September 3, 2004 QuoteI can't wait! My plan is to get a bunch of cheap genuine Glock full cap .40 cal magazines. Maybe even a G22 to go with my G27. I'm very psyched for the return of our rights. http://www.topglock.com/catalog/sunset.htm They're taking preorders on full capacity magazines. QuoteI'm very psyched for the return of our rights. You, me, and every other person concerned with personal liberty. I'm definately buying be for this one; the first time rights were actually returned. (yes, that means the guns stay out of my hands that day)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #114 September 3, 2004 Bah...what a scam. They'll be $10-$15 retail, I bet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #115 September 3, 2004 We'll see. I don't do internet for important purchases. Personally, I just want to get some marked magazines. (LEO only, etc) That and I want a .223 marked as well, with all the goodies. It'll be a nice little collectors item, and a good reminder/heirloom.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites burbleflyer 0 #116 September 3, 2004 QuoteWe'll see. I don't do internet for important purchases. Personally, I just want to get some marked magazines. (LEO only, etc) That and I want a .223 marked as well, with all the goodies. It'll be a nice little collectors item, and a good reminder/heirloom. Go to ar15.com and check the equipment exchange 'magazines' section. There is a guy there named Moncrie selling new LEO marked 30 rnd mags for 10.95. Check in the 'complete firearms' section for a guy named SteyrAug. He's taking preorders for LEO marked Colt AR15s. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #117 September 3, 2004 Sweet!! I don't expect these things to reach class 3 prices, but it'll still be awesome to have them. Thanks.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #118 September 4, 2004 QuoteBah...what a scam. They'll be $10-$15 retail, I bet. Prices right after the sunset will likely still be a bit high. Unless you're really itching to exercise the restored capacity of your firearms, wait a bit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #119 September 5, 2004 172.5 hours until a tiny chunk of liberty goes back to the people.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #120 September 7, 2004 Less than a week to go, Call your reps, no matter which side you're on. Congress is back in session.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #121 September 7, 2004 QuoteLess than a week to go, Call your reps, no matter which side you're on. Congress is back in session. Um, Kennedy, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't just as happy if people who support the ban don't contact their legislators. There's no reason to wish for your opposition to be organized. It's not the same as trying to prevent them from getting their representative government. I would just as soon liberals never voted again, much less contacted their legislators to urge them to extend harmful, useless legislation. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #122 September 8, 2004 Yeah, but I get a relly good kick out of my congressman when he shares exerpts from his less beloved constituents. Besides, with even Feinstein conceding defeat, it's over (for now, anyway) http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2783410witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #123 September 8, 2004 The article you linked LEADS with this: QuoteThe fight to renew a favored ban on assault weapons effectively died Tuesday after the lead Senate sponsor of a bill to continue restrictions on the sale and manufacture of some semi-automatic weapons conceded defeat. Right off the bat, it lies. "FAVORED ban on assault weapons"? If it were truly favored, it would be extended. Simple as that. Unless people really expect us to believe that Congressmen are intent on risking political suicide by letting the ban expire rather than meeting the so-called mandate from their constituents to renew it. There IS no public mandate for this law to be renewed. Any public support for it arises from an utter lack of understanding of what the law actually does. (Most people I talk to who claim to support it really do think that it targets full-auto guns! --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #124 September 9, 2004 This short article seems to have actually grasped the truth. http://www.theheraldbulletin.com/story.asp?id=6960 QuoteFind out truth on assault rifles for yourself By DAVID SARGENT In response to Karla Horn’s letter, semiautomatic firearms have been around since the 1800s. It has only been in the past 20 years or so that the term “assault rifle” has been coined by the anti-gun lobby. In the military definition of assault rifle, they consider it to be a selective-fire rifle. That means that more than one bullet is expended by one pull of the trigger. Fully automatic firearms have been severely regulated since 1935. So we are not talking about “assault rifles” in the correct sense. Semiautomatic rifles are used in less than 4 percent of all firearms crimes. There are more people killed by drunken drivers than by firearms in this country. The firearms ban is based on solely “cosmetic features.’’ The cosmetic features that have been included in the ban are any rifle with a detachable magazine and any two of the following items: A folding or telescopic stock, a bayonet mount, a flash suppresser or threaded barrel and a grenade launcher. In fact most so-called “assault weapons” are not considered powerful enough to be allowed to be used for hunting, according to many of the states’ hunting laws. In two of the countries that have recently banned private firearms ownership, the crime rate has risen dramatically. Look at the crime rates for England and Australia since they have enacted the ban on civilian firearms ownership. I do believe that all police officers should be issued semiautomatic rifles to be used in the performance of their duties, just like they are issued a handgun.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cvfd1399 0 #125 September 10, 2004 latest of lies here is something I posted in regards to this also Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
PhillyKev 0 #105 August 31, 2004 QuoteI think your definition is overly restrictive and should only apply to "small arms". Agreed, and if you read the federalist papers, you'd see that's what they meant by arms in the 2nd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #106 August 31, 2004 Kev, to my knowledge, no Supreme Court has ruled precisely on the exact line for the Second Amendment (no balancing act, no simple test). According to Miller, only weapons applicable to the militia are protected, and "sporting firearms" are not. (try telling THAT to VPC or Brady) That would mean short barrels, burst fire, unlimited mags, etc are not to be messed with by the government. Of course, anti gun people don't like to let laws get in their way, but that's another discussion. Also, regulated, as understood by the framing fathers, meant 'in good working order, properly funcitoning, orderly,' as Jeffrey correctly pointed out. edit: My understanding is that 2nd A was meant to recognize the right of the populace to be armed in a similar way to infantry of the Army. Today, as I see it, that would mean rifles equal to the M-4, SAWs, the M-278(number?) grenade launcher. I don't know which side of the line an RPG would fall on, but on must admit that few militias can operate without them.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #107 September 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteI think your definition is overly restrictive and should only apply to "small arms". Agreed, and if you read the federalist papers, you'd see that's what they meant by arms in the 2nd. While I agree they expressed themselves concerning rifles, pistols, other single soldier weapons, I question whether that limits the discussion to rifles. I simply cannot think of an example of a larger single soldier weapons system. There were rifles, and there were cannons, and not much in between. Accordingly, I would state that artillery, and crew served weapons, are not covered by the second amendment. I would state unequivocalby that all "guns" are covered, not matter their look or operation. Mortars are more difficult, but I would state that they are not included in the rights recognized by the second amendment (recognized, not granted). RPGs, small tank-killers, etc, are more difficult to decide because they don't fit neatly into either seciton, they straddle the delineations. Seeing as the framers tended to recognize more rather than less on every occasion, I say RPGs should be covered, but could be argued either way. (if it's not covered by an amendment specifically, that doesn't necessarily mean it must be banned, but try telling THAT to congress)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #108 September 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think your definition is overly restrictive and should only apply to "small arms". Agreed, and if you read the federalist papers, you'd see that's what they meant by arms in the 2nd. While I agree they expressed themselves concerning rifles, pistols, other single soldier weapons, I question whether that limits the discussion to rifles. I simply cannot think of an example of a larger single soldier weapons system. There were rifles, and there were cannons, and not much in between. Accordingly, I would state that artillery, and crew served weapons, are not covered by the second amendment. I would state unequivocalby that all "guns" are covered, not matter their look or operation. Mortars are more difficult, but I would state that they are not included in the rights recognized by the second amendment (recognized, not granted). RPGs, small tank-killers, etc, are more difficult to decide because they don't fit neatly into either seciton, they straddle the delineations. Seeing as the framers tended to recognize more rather than less on every occasion, I say RPGs should be covered, but could be argued either way. (if it's not covered by an amendment specifically, that doesn't necessarily mean it must be banned, but try telling THAT to congress) How can any militia be effective if it is denied weaponry appropriate to its time?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #109 September 1, 2004 QuoteHow can any militia be effective if it is denied weaponry appropriate to its time? I'm just talking about what the amendment says. The framers didn't have anything between firearms and crew served artillery, so their guidance doesn't cover this. To be effective, a militia does not need RPGs, but they would certainly be useful against what you would call the military.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #110 September 3, 2004 10 days 3 hours 36 minutes Does anyone at all think they'll get their extension? If they don't, what's around the corner? Think there's an even more heinous law brewing? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #111 September 3, 2004 Quote 10 days 3 hours 36 minutes Does anyone at all think they'll get their extension? If they don't, what's around the corner? Think there's an even more heinous law brewing? Jim Shit, there's always a more heinous law brewing. I read somewhere that in every legislative session, there is a proposed Constitutional amendment attempted that says, "The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." It never goes anywhere, and hasn't a prayer of passing, but there are shitwads in Congress who actually want it to be a reality, and so propose it every time even despite its inevitable doom. These are the people who need to be removed from office, because they truly do not want good laws for America. They are trying to kill it. edit P.S. It's hilarious to me how the Democrats aren't willing to touch this issue at all before the election. It just proves those pussies don't have the strength of their convictions. They blab on and on with bullshit polls that claim that even gun owners support the AWB, and that 78% or whatever of Americans want stricter gun laws and want the ban renewed. If this were even remotely true, then it would be a popular issue to harp on in an election year to garner more of this supposed popular support. Does anyone wonder why they don't go anywhere within ten miles of it? It's because they know they've been full of shit all along about the alleged popularity of gun control. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #112 September 3, 2004 Quote 10 days 3 hours 36 minutes I had forgotten the countdown! It is way closer, since the last time I took notice of it! Wow! I can't wait! My plan is to get a bunch of cheap genuine Glock full cap .40 cal magazines. Maybe even a G22 to go with my G27. I'm very psyched for the return of our rights. Blue skies, --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #113 September 3, 2004 QuoteI can't wait! My plan is to get a bunch of cheap genuine Glock full cap .40 cal magazines. Maybe even a G22 to go with my G27. I'm very psyched for the return of our rights. http://www.topglock.com/catalog/sunset.htm They're taking preorders on full capacity magazines. QuoteI'm very psyched for the return of our rights. You, me, and every other person concerned with personal liberty. I'm definately buying be for this one; the first time rights were actually returned. (yes, that means the guns stay out of my hands that day)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #114 September 3, 2004 Bah...what a scam. They'll be $10-$15 retail, I bet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #115 September 3, 2004 We'll see. I don't do internet for important purchases. Personally, I just want to get some marked magazines. (LEO only, etc) That and I want a .223 marked as well, with all the goodies. It'll be a nice little collectors item, and a good reminder/heirloom.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burbleflyer 0 #116 September 3, 2004 QuoteWe'll see. I don't do internet for important purchases. Personally, I just want to get some marked magazines. (LEO only, etc) That and I want a .223 marked as well, with all the goodies. It'll be a nice little collectors item, and a good reminder/heirloom. Go to ar15.com and check the equipment exchange 'magazines' section. There is a guy there named Moncrie selling new LEO marked 30 rnd mags for 10.95. Check in the 'complete firearms' section for a guy named SteyrAug. He's taking preorders for LEO marked Colt AR15s. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #117 September 3, 2004 Sweet!! I don't expect these things to reach class 3 prices, but it'll still be awesome to have them. Thanks.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #118 September 4, 2004 QuoteBah...what a scam. They'll be $10-$15 retail, I bet. Prices right after the sunset will likely still be a bit high. Unless you're really itching to exercise the restored capacity of your firearms, wait a bit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #119 September 5, 2004 172.5 hours until a tiny chunk of liberty goes back to the people.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #120 September 7, 2004 Less than a week to go, Call your reps, no matter which side you're on. Congress is back in session.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #121 September 7, 2004 QuoteLess than a week to go, Call your reps, no matter which side you're on. Congress is back in session. Um, Kennedy, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't just as happy if people who support the ban don't contact their legislators. There's no reason to wish for your opposition to be organized. It's not the same as trying to prevent them from getting their representative government. I would just as soon liberals never voted again, much less contacted their legislators to urge them to extend harmful, useless legislation. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #122 September 8, 2004 Yeah, but I get a relly good kick out of my congressman when he shares exerpts from his less beloved constituents. Besides, with even Feinstein conceding defeat, it's over (for now, anyway) http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2783410witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #123 September 8, 2004 The article you linked LEADS with this: QuoteThe fight to renew a favored ban on assault weapons effectively died Tuesday after the lead Senate sponsor of a bill to continue restrictions on the sale and manufacture of some semi-automatic weapons conceded defeat. Right off the bat, it lies. "FAVORED ban on assault weapons"? If it were truly favored, it would be extended. Simple as that. Unless people really expect us to believe that Congressmen are intent on risking political suicide by letting the ban expire rather than meeting the so-called mandate from their constituents to renew it. There IS no public mandate for this law to be renewed. Any public support for it arises from an utter lack of understanding of what the law actually does. (Most people I talk to who claim to support it really do think that it targets full-auto guns! --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #124 September 9, 2004 This short article seems to have actually grasped the truth. http://www.theheraldbulletin.com/story.asp?id=6960 QuoteFind out truth on assault rifles for yourself By DAVID SARGENT In response to Karla Horn’s letter, semiautomatic firearms have been around since the 1800s. It has only been in the past 20 years or so that the term “assault rifle” has been coined by the anti-gun lobby. In the military definition of assault rifle, they consider it to be a selective-fire rifle. That means that more than one bullet is expended by one pull of the trigger. Fully automatic firearms have been severely regulated since 1935. So we are not talking about “assault rifles” in the correct sense. Semiautomatic rifles are used in less than 4 percent of all firearms crimes. There are more people killed by drunken drivers than by firearms in this country. The firearms ban is based on solely “cosmetic features.’’ The cosmetic features that have been included in the ban are any rifle with a detachable magazine and any two of the following items: A folding or telescopic stock, a bayonet mount, a flash suppresser or threaded barrel and a grenade launcher. In fact most so-called “assault weapons” are not considered powerful enough to be allowed to be used for hunting, according to many of the states’ hunting laws. In two of the countries that have recently banned private firearms ownership, the crime rate has risen dramatically. Look at the crime rates for England and Australia since they have enacted the ban on civilian firearms ownership. I do believe that all police officers should be issued semiautomatic rifles to be used in the performance of their duties, just like they are issued a handgun.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #125 September 10, 2004 latest of lies here is something I posted in regards to this also Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
