Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ArrogantBustard; TigersEye
It's pretty obvious there is a faction here at FR that is willing to accept 'bullet bans' [and possibly AWB's] in order to prevent spurious lawsuits against gun manufacturer's..

Bizarre/diversionary reasoning once again. The fox is in the henhouse, and they say we must pass more laws on arcane legalities regarding lawsuits.
36 posted on 02/27/2004 9:46:21 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines conservatism; - not the GOP. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine
It's pretty obvious there is a faction here at FR that is willing to accept 'bullet bans' [and possibly AWB's] in order to prevent spurious lawsuits against gun manufacturer's..

So it would seem. Both the "AP bullet" ban and the "AWB", either one alone, are major loophole legislations that would allow for the banning of a broad swath of civilian firepower by future bureaucratic fiat.

It is like putting a backdoor into computer operating systems. The OS is benign enough when you install it, for the average "point-and-click" user, but it has that secret door where those with the key can come in and do what they will; steal what you have, alter it, destroy it or plant evidence against you.

Shortsightedness on these "concessions" will bring us much closer to a standoff at the front door instead of the House Floor. Either that or surrender. (Ptui)

111 posted on 02/28/2004 3:18:55 AM PST by TigersEye (Carrying a gun is a social obligation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson