Skip to comments.
Assault Weapons Ban Poll
Vote.com ^
Posted on 05/14/2003 4:35:48 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
Freep the poll.
An email with the results will be sent to your reps.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: assault; ban; banglist; freep; weapons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
To: Joe Brower
I think you'd better take me off you ping list. Althought I support the right to own and bear arms, I do not believe assault weapons should be in the hands of anyone but the military/police types. That is what they were created for. I could not vote on the poll as I did not agree with either the pro or con issues. Sorry.
41
posted on
05/15/2003 8:28:51 AM PDT
by
beachn4fun
(God Bless our military...our allied military...our real allies....President Bush....and Tony Blair)
To: beachn4fun
Done, although your thinking is in error in relation to so-called "assault weapons". Let me put it this way: If George Washington were alive today, do you think he would want his citizen's militia (all males between 17 and 42 years of age) to be armed with muskets, or AR-15s?
I am ex-military. What's that worth? I never saw any halo above my head, then or now.
42
posted on
05/15/2003 8:38:49 AM PDT
by
Joe Brower
(http://www.joebrower.com/)
To: beachn4fun
I want you to respectfully ask you to reconsider. This bill does more to make a criminal out of a good citizen than to have any real effect on crime or criminals. This is only another step on the way to banning all guns. One at a time, they want them all. They know they'll lose if they try that so they divide us up by going after one type of gun at a time hoping that we won't care and fight for a gun that we don't own. Don't let them get away with it.
43
posted on
05/15/2003 9:04:07 AM PDT
by
Badray
(Molon Labe!)
To: Shooter 2.5
bttt
79%
- hmmmm... representatives that "don't accept e-mail" from their voters. HMMMM... Will they talk to me on the phone, ya think?
To: Shooter 2.5
What are those "guns" shown on the poll page? They look vaguely familiar, like some kind of sub-gun, but I don't know what sort. Design looks sort of eastern block, but I can't place it.
45
posted on
05/15/2003 9:21:36 AM PDT
by
El Gato
To: El Gato
I thnk the bottom one is an UZI but for all I know they're SoftAir products.
If we don't get off our lazy butts, the next poll will have a picture of granddaddy's shotgun and 30-30.
46
posted on
05/15/2003 9:30:23 AM PDT
by
Shooter 2.5
(Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
To: Shooter 2.5
Freeped
47
posted on
05/15/2003 9:39:03 AM PDT
by
OXENinFLA
(The 2nd Amed. was never ment for Hunting game.)
To: Shooter 2.5
FReeped
48
posted on
05/15/2003 10:38:37 AM PDT
by
ApesForEvolution
("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
To: Badray
Well, when they start trying to ban shootguns and handguns, then I will fight. That is one of the reasons I did not vote on the poll. They (the "pro") mentions shotguns. I cannot vote for a ban that includes them. But I do not agree with assault-weapons being given to the general public.
49
posted on
05/15/2003 11:57:25 AM PDT
by
beachn4fun
(God Bless our military...our allied military...our real allies....President Bush....and Tony Blair)
To: Joe Brower
Well, first off I don't think Washington ever envisioned guns of the sort we have today. Second, I agree that our military should have possession of AR-15s, I just believe that they are not for the general public.
BTW... thank you so very much for your service to our country and the others in need.
50
posted on
05/15/2003 12:03:17 PM PDT
by
beachn4fun
(God Bless our military...our allied military...our real allies....President Bush....and Tony Blair)
To: beachn4fun
You better get in shape then. Your part of the fight is coming up. See this thread for the expanded version that they want to pass in place of the current one.
If passed, one pistol, one rifle, and one shotgun that I own will be banned. All of them fire only one round with each pull of the trigger, but they LOOK like 'assault' weapons.
Go here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/910265/posts
51
posted on
05/15/2003 12:12:42 PM PDT
by
Badray
(Molon Labe!)
To: beachn4fun
Our military has much, much more than simple AR-15s. In fact, their base M-16s are superior due to their full-auto capability, which civilian AR-15s do not have.
As far as what George Washington and the founding fathers envisioned, you underestimate them. Read "The Federalist Papers" for more on this.
By your logic, to put the first amendment in the same context, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed lead type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone radio, TV or satellite transmission.
As for the inappropriateness of rifles such as AR-15s and the like, tell that to the Korean grocers in L.A. during the Rodney King riots of April 1992 how such firearms are "not for the general public". When the local police told them "we're overwhelmed -- you're on your own", these citizens were able to adequately defend themselves against the hordes that were burning and looting everything in sight.
Do not mistake me -- if you wish to be defenseless in the face if such adversity, feel free. But do not seek to enforce that same level of inability on me.
52
posted on
05/15/2003 12:22:29 PM PDT
by
Joe Brower
(http://www.joebrower.com/)
To: beachn4fun
"Well, first off I don't think Washington ever envisioned guns of the sort we have today." Is the First Amendment obsolete because they didn't envision the computer, the telephone, TV, or the high speed "assault' printing press?
The flintlock of 1776 was the AR-15 of today. The SCOTUS 1939 Miller decision that is highly touted by liberals, established the MILITIA purpose of weapons supported by the Second Amendment. The sawed off shotgun in the case was not then recognized for it's value in warfare.
We are to have military type arms if we are to withstand the tyranny of an out of control government. That was the purpose of the Amendment (and that of 35 or 40 of the state constitutions) in the Federal Constitution.
53
posted on
05/15/2003 12:22:58 PM PDT
by
Badray
(Molon Labe!)
To: Joe Brower
GMTA
54
posted on
05/15/2003 12:24:15 PM PDT
by
Badray
(Molon Labe!)
To: Shooter 2.5
Stop it with these right-wing issues. What would anyone need a gun for? <\sarcasm>
To: Badray
Thanks! Yes, they do. $:-)
56
posted on
05/15/2003 12:38:09 PM PDT
by
Joe Brower
(http://www.joebrower.com/)
To: Joe Brower
Yes (2,994) (21%)
No (11,538) (79%)
57
posted on
05/15/2003 7:56:46 PM PDT
by
PhilDragoo
(Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
To: Joe Brower
Nope, don't think I'll be defenseless. I think I can handle self-defense just as well with a Mag-44 handgun, 9mm, 12-gauge if they are close enough, and so forth. I don't think I have to have an assault weapon to defend my home. I don't see the logic in thinking JQ Public has to have assault weapons. If someone is trying to include shotguns and handguns (and by these I do not mean the small hand-held machine gun types)and some small-caliber rifles that are used for hunting, under the title of "assault weapons," then maybe the fight needs to be on changing the terminology of what is classified as "assault weapons."
I think we citizens can fight for the protection of the First Amendment without including the need for allowing "assault weapons" to be sold to Mr. & Mrs. JQ Public.
But, keep up the good fight. We need people willing to keep people aware.
58
posted on
05/16/2003 7:01:21 AM PDT
by
beachn4fun
(God Bless our military...our allied military...our real allies....President Bush....and Tony Blair)
To: Badray
Ok, thanks for the link. Will check it out.
59
posted on
05/16/2003 7:03:12 AM PDT
by
beachn4fun
(God Bless our military...our allied military...our real allies....President Bush....and Tony Blair)
To: Shooter 2.5
Not bad for a "vote once" Freep but I wish we could have beat the 80% mark.
Day 8, 09:13 AM ET (Results are delayed 15 minutes) Total Votes: 14,790 |
|
|
percent votes |
|
|
Yes (3,023) |
(20%) |
No (11,767) |
(80%) |
|
|
ALL VOTERS |
|
It just did..
60
posted on
05/16/2003 7:15:08 AM PDT
by
RandallFlagg
("There are worse things than crucifixion...There are teeth.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson