Exactly. Let them pass this legislation. Let them legally define firearms as Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Then we'll have legal grounds to invade Cuba and France.
Methinks that wouldn't be what the liberals on the Left Coast had in mind...
Posted on 05/01/2003 8:41:12 PM PDT by FreedomCalls
Defenders of the Second Amendment are on the lookout for a new Democrat campaign, already attempted in one state, to brand handguns as “weapons of mass destruction.” Washington Gov. Gary Locke, picked by the Democrats to give their response President Bush’s State of the Union address just a couple of months ago, urged his state's Legislature to create six terror-related crimes that would bring guns under the legal definition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Though the legislation offered by the governor and Attorney General Christine Gregoire did not mention specific weapons, Join Together Online, an anti-gun group, reported the legislation defined a weapon of mass destruction as a “device, object, or substance that a person intends to use to cause multiple human deaths.”
Here is how the Seattle Times on March 15 led its story on how the Legislature dealt with the issue: “An anti-terrorism bill has spurred a debate among lawmakers: Is a gun a weapon of mass destruction?”
In response to the governor, several Democrat lawmakers crafted House Bill 1210 to include firearms as weapons of mass destruction.
The state legislators cited last October’s sniper attacks in the District of Columbia area as their foot in the door to try to deprive law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights. The snipers had ties to the Seattle area.
'I Tried to Push the Envelope'
“I tried to push the envelope on this bill to see if it would cover those guys if they had chosen to take out the rest of their aggression in Washington,” said Democrat state Rep. Jeannie Darneille. “And the answer, quite frankly, was no.”
Gun rights groups and Connecticut gun maker Colt Manufacturing said that defining firearms as weapons of mass destruction “is an attempt to regulate gun control” and would permit any gun to be considered a weapon of mass destruction.
To those who disingenuously argued that guns were not so defined in the legislation, Joe Waldron, a lobbyist for Gun Owner’s Action League and other gun rights groups, said it met “everybody else’s definition other than those in Olympia.”
According to an AP dispatch March 19, the Washington House of Representatives passed the anti-terrorism bill, but only after the section listing firearms as weapons of mass destruction was dropped. That change resulted from the insistence of more conservative lawmakers. Though it was a close call, some semblance of rationality ultimately prevailed.
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the federal government asked each state to enact some kind of anti-terrorism legislation. Of course, defining handguns as weapons of mass destruction was not something the Bush administration had in mind.
The recent events in the Evergreen State demonstrate the necessity of vigilance to make certain that thinly disguised gun control (by whatever name) does not spread to other state Capitols or to the U.S. Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
If they would only line up politely to take their bullet.
Which is no sillier than this proposal.
Exactly. Let them pass this legislation. Let them legally define firearms as Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Then we'll have legal grounds to invade Cuba and France.
Methinks that wouldn't be what the liberals on the Left Coast had in mind...
This could also be used to outlaw all surgical instruments used in abortion clinics.
I've been flying all three flags since 9/11. Full-sized flags only cost $10 on eBay, fyi.
We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century
IV. Freedom from fear
F. Pursuing arms reductions
Small arms
238. The death toll from small arms dwarfs that of all other weapons systems — and in most years greatly exceeds the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In terms of the carnage they cause, small arms, indeed, could well be described as “weapons of mass destruction”. Yet there is still no global non-proliferation regime to limit their spread, as there is for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
http://www.cdinet.com/cdiweb/print-portfolio1.html
We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century
In early 2000 we edited and produced this high profile publication for the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan.
And this "person" and the UN had to have been batting it around for some time in their little Socialist minds...
Since 1995, special attention has been devoted to the issue of Small Arms and Light Weapons, which have been the weapons of choice in recent conflicts on the UN's agenda.
Not a damned thing "new" about any of this, except to the uninformed!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.