[Empire_of_Liberty]

"If they misled/lied about the comparative lethality/power of banned vs non-banned weapons, and overstated the differences between the two - is that good or bad?"

O.K. I'll try this as though you're serious.

It is bad. Scaring CNN's less-than-brilliant usual audience into beleiving that machine guns will be legal if the 1994 ban is allowed to sunset is manipulative and dishonest.

How could it be good?

"The AWB should receive a roll call vote either way."

The 1994 AWB should be allowed to sunset. No extension or alternative implementation of it should even reach the floor of either house. It was wrong legislation then, and it is still wrong today.

"I can't get too excited about CNN's great lie at this point in time."

Is this because you do not mind being lied to? Or is it because you agree with the deception and hope that it will persuade to public to support extending or enhancing the ban?

In either case, I hope you do not vote.

[AnAmericanMother]

. . . great minds.

I don't know if familyofman is serious or if he's a gun-hating liberal troll. I guess it depends on whether he really knows nothing about firearms. In that case, he's just one of the people that CNN is trying to dupe.

Which is why I keep throwing the facts out there in the hope that some folks who are totally ignorant of firearms will get un-ignorant. Before it's too late.

[familyofman]

"In either case, I hope you do not vote."
I hate to disappoint, but I have voted in every election; local, state, federal that I've been eligible to vote in - and will continue to do so. I feel it is an obligation of citizenship.
On other related matters: I broke one of my own rules today & made on comment on a thread dealing with the 2nd ammendment - since my beleifs are not in the majority here it is truly senseless for me to get involved in these discussions. I am not going to change any minds & you will not change mine on this subject. I read the 2nd ammendment to include the little qualifier dealing with "need for a well-regulated militia" to mean that the RTKABA can be restricted. There are certain weapons that can/should be outside any protection they have from the 2nd ammendment - something like the restrictions on free speech that makes it criminal to yell fire in a crowded theater.
Anyone that wants to reply, that's fine by me, but I will post on this thread no more, forever.
I am familiar with guns, for those that care to know - an expert marksman with a rifle & not too bad with handguns, I have also been a hunter (deer in PA with my uncles using a 30.06). Not that that really matters. Not all conservatives read the constitution the same way - that's why the courts have been anything but unanimous in their opinions on guns & 2nd ammendment.