A well trained dog is an "assault weapon".
Stay safe; stay armed.
Please keep pinging me even though we don't agree on this issue!!!
Posted on 04/12/2003 7:50:38 AM PDT by Mini-14
The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election. "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.
Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority of the NRA. Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
A well trained dog is an "assault weapon".
Stay safe; stay armed.
Please keep pinging me even though we don't agree on this issue!!!
;>)
1. Domestic markets suffered, while foreign suppliers benefitted. Not a good thing to perpetuate during an economic slow-down.
2. The lower capacities encouraged larger calibers to fit in the same size grips. Since you're going for larger calibers, you might as well go for the more powerful ammunition types as well to maximize stopping power, since you have fewer rounds to protect your family. This stupid law has encouraged a dramatic increase in the lethality of the average carry weapon. (Few people carry anything smaller than a .38 now)
3. The laws have made criminals out of citizens who have done nothing wrong... they merely held on to the weapons they had before. Their is no evil intention on thier part, but they now have to live in fear of having their personal possessions "discovered" and having their lives ruined. Further, since whatever grace periods may or may not have existed are long gone, it is now illegal for them to try to register these banned weapons. They very clearly are damned if they do and damned if they don't... hardly belonging within the principles of the American Justice system.
First off, "assault weapon" is an evil-sounding phrase without a precise definition. It basicly means "whatever firearm the liberals don't like at the moment". Currently, it effectively means any military-style semi-automatic rifle that can accept a high-capacity magazine (a magazine being the thing which holds the ammo). For some liberals, it also means any handgun that accepts a large-capacity magazine
Why would one want one? Several reasons
I'm just interested in why there was a ban in the first place, and two, why do you need to:
say such things?
follow that religion?
print such news?
assemble publicly in such groups?
have the same rights as whites?
keep the fruits of your own labor?
have women voting?
Get the point? None other than uber-liberal Alan Dershowitz said that allowing gun bans was a bad idea because it sets a road map for other rights to be attacked.
This is a good way to lose tough states like Michigan, Ohio, Penn, New Hampshire, Tennesee, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico.
Aim is ALWAYS an issue. Whatever bullets don't hit the bad guy are going to keep going past him, until they hit something that stops them. Hopefully, something OTHER than the baby crib across the street.
Bullets (especially rifle bullets) will penetrate interior walls (sheetrock will be penetrated by a forcefully pushed pencil), the vinyl siding on the house's exterior, the vinyl siding on the house across the street (you get the picture)
It's time to Freep Bush into backing down on this. Any extension of the gun grab will be unacceptable and will be treated accordingly.
No. Here comes Bush's TOP BASE that went to bat for him. Bush talks about loyalty. Loyalty is a two way street. If he doesn't go to bat for us gunowners, why should gunowners go to bat for him?
I take back my "Timmy / well" comment.
This is a perfect example of using too many words. You only needed to say:
Can we agree that El Roy looks silly?
1. Because I want one, and other citizens are allowed to own them and use them (police officers, federal officers, military personnel, federal agents). Given the fact that I've had more training, more practice and have better gun-handling habits than most of the police that I'm friends with, it really seems incongruous that they can use a tool that I cannot. (Just last month I quietly admonished at an officer who was fingering his trigger while sitting in a restaurant.)
2. Because the very premise of the 2nd Amendment is that the populace should always and forever be able to rebuff a standing army (either foreign or domestic). To do so, we have to make up for our lack of training and organization. We do that by out-numbering them 20-1 (45 million hunters would have little problem with 3 million Chinese), and by having the same basic weapon for our footsoldiers as they have for theirs. They carry assault weapons. Ergo, we should have them as well.
3. Because our family members may have a weapon that they grew rather fond of (in war, in the police force, as federal officials, etc), and they wish to pass them on to their loved ones. Why on earth should some bureaucrat be allowed tell you what personal belongings you may or may not pass on to your children???
Are those 3 a good start?
And Middle America isn't the NY Times Editorial page. Middle America doesn't support gun grabs. As a whole they are more liberal on some issues like education, but leave the gun cabinent alone.
Are Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennesee, Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, New Hampshire, Florida, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin anti-gun states?
Regarding you "hunting me", well, I suspect you flap your gums more than you shoot, and that short of a lucky shot on your part I'd be perfectly safe.
It, along with "No New Taxes (not)" probably cost him a second term, considering the fact that those conservatives he alienated mostly voted for Perot, whilst the Left solidified behind Bubba The Monica Sponge.
Wasn't Monica the Bubba sponge? /nitpick :)
Wow .. bad question my dear. I didn't need to quit school and join the army; I didn't need to pull a guy out of a burning car when I was 16; I didn't need to kick the sh!! out of some guys beating up a friend in high school ....... etc. I JUST WANT TO. I own all kinds of things I don't NEED.
Have you ever thought about the fact that some dumb ass like me could walk/drive around Germany at 22 years old with a .45, M-16, 9 inch knife, and the launch codes for a Pershing Missile Battery?
Now that I'm over 50, educated, and been a responsible member of my community for 30 years I'm not allowed a M-16? VERY odd way of thinking.
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.