1 posted on
05/13/2002 8:32:26 AM PDT by
dbwz
To: dbwz
Old news here in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Massachusetts (currently the world's fifth largest Communist government, after China, North Korea, Vietnam, and California). Courts in the PDRM have consistently held that the Bill of Rights applies only to those with whom they agree.
2 posted on
05/13/2002 8:36:55 AM PDT by
pabianice
To: dbwz
WHAT A LOAD OF NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To: dbwz
Our local target and trap range disallows any targets that resembles a human form for civilian marksmen but it does allow law enforcement to use them.After 9/11 the did let us shoot Osama BinLaden targets but they stopped that when other Muslim targets started to show up. I think targets that would incorporate a spray of blood ( mabey with a thin layer of tomato sauce incorporated into the target ) would be even more offensive! (and fun!)
4 posted on
05/13/2002 8:45:04 AM PDT by
claptrap
To: dbwz
Our local target and trap range disallows any targets that resembles a human form for civilian marksmen but it does allow law enforcement to use them.After 9/11 the did let us shoot Osama BinLaden targets but they stopped that when other Muslim targets started to show up. I think targets that would incorporate a spray of blood ( mabey with a thin layer of tomato sauce incorporated into the target ) would be even more offensive! (and fun!)
5 posted on
05/13/2002 8:45:17 AM PDT by
claptrap
To: dbwz
Our local target and trap range disallows any targets that resembles a human form for civilian marksmen but it does allow law enforcement to use them.After 9/11 the did let us shoot Osama BinLaden targets but they stopped that when other Muslim targets started to show up. I think targets that would incorporate a spray of blood ( mabey with a thin layer of tomato sauce incorporated into the target ) would be even more offensive! (and fun!)
6 posted on
05/13/2002 8:45:37 AM PDT by
claptrap
To: bang_list
*
7 posted on
05/13/2002 8:51:13 AM PDT by
dbwz
To: dbwz
Her conclusion is fine, but comparing silhouette shooting to viewing pornography is a stretch (unless she's referring to target practice on a nude photo of Alec Baldwin).
Essentially she's saying that since we have an arguably bad law protecting porn, we really can't stop a bad law that protects other "free speech". And she uses the lame argument along the lines of 'most heroin users at one time smoked pot, so if you smoke pot you will eventually use heroin', and she interviews a child molester to prove her point.
She should have interviewed a gangbanger to find out how many "human-shaped targets" he shot at before killing someone. I'm not concerned with a 'bulls-eye' crashing through my front door.
To: dbwz
What's the current status of this case? Are they planning an appeal?
9 posted on
05/13/2002 10:11:48 AM PDT by
mvpel
To: dbwz
This is basically the same argument that gun control and gun rights people have every day.
Gun control nuts say less guns = less crime. Gun rights folks say more guns = less crime and more self defense.
The gun contol crowd takes it to the extreme with the targets, but basically it's the same. They say no human targets = less likely to shoot a human and gun rights people know that using human targets for practice makes better shooter when a self defense situation arises.
The gun control folks are almost correct but are analyzing the info. incorrectly.
Practicing with human targets makes it more likely you will hit the target when needed because you won't delay when you realize you are aiming at a human form. It doesn't mean you all of a sudden your a stone cold assassin.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson