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

This is the lead editorial in this morning's St. Paul Pioneer Press. It's unsigned, which means it's the official position of the editorial board.

Two weeks ago the Press endorsed George W. Bush. Now, they come out in favor of protecting shooting ranges and call the NRA Range Operations Handbook "a national standard." What is happening here?

If I'm dreaming, please don't wake me.

1 posted on 11/12/2004 7:12:18 AM PST by brbethke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Lucretia Borgia; Johnny Gage; jdege; Valin; Gondring; Paul Ross; Aeronaut; Keisha; MNlurker; ...

I-can't-believe-this-happened-in-Minnesota bump


2 posted on 11/12/2004 7:17:29 AM PST by brbethke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: brbethke

One way to cut down on the noise - legalize sound suppressors. Even many of the euro-weenie governments "allow" (in their infinite "wisdom") this.


3 posted on 11/12/2004 7:19:31 AM PST by DocH (Release ALL your Navy records AND your private journal Kerry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: brbethke
All any state needs to do is to legalize "silencers," and to encourage a manufacturer to produce them in state. That would remove them from federal jurisdiction (according to a recent 9th circuit ruling.) The ranges would be much quieter, and could even require "cans" for certain guns or times of day.
5 posted on 11/12/2004 7:20:56 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: brbethke
Very cool. We are in the process of moving back up to MN. Northwest corner of Anoka County. Gun Club just a couple miles from my In-laws place.

Noise supressors. These should never have been made illegal...

6 posted on 11/12/2004 7:24:02 AM PST by Dead Corpse (My days of taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: brbethke; All
I didn't want to bring this up as a separate post, but since we are talking gun related stuff now, can anyone tell me what exactly the difference is bewteen a Creedmore sight, a Soule sight and a Vernier Tang sight. I know the "tang" is simply a way to mount the sight.

A Creedmore, Soule and vernier all look exactly the same to me, the only difference I can tell is that a Creedmore has the windage adjutsment on the left (as you look down the sight), A Soule has the windage adjustment on both sides, or at least appears to and the vernier has the windage adjustment on the right.

I also noted that the Soule and vernier use a spirit globe front sight with inserts and the Creedmore does not.

I also noted that certain rifles are Creedmores. Like a Navy Arms #2 Creedmore or a Sharps Creedmore. But I saw a John Bodine Rolling Block with a Soule sight, not a John Bodine Soule Rolling Block, and a Cimmaron 1885 Hi-Wall with a vernier sight, not a 1885 Hi-Wall Vernier rifle.

Is there really a difference bewteen these sights?

Thanks

16 posted on 11/12/2004 7:54:58 AM PST by Duke809
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: brbethke

There is a great solution. Push for the de-regulation of sound suppresed weapons (silencers). Then the noobes won't have to listen to all that nasty banging. Maybe you can get them on the bandwagon and take a bite out of the NFA...


34 posted on 11/12/2004 9:09:45 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (I'm from North Dakota and I'm all FOR Global Warming! Bring it ON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: brbethke

BTTT


36 posted on 11/12/2004 9:11:15 AM PST by Fiddlstix (This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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