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

To: thorshammer
As I said, I would be against adding a bunch of useless crap and will fight it, but the political reality is that the law will likely be renewed.

The support was strong for the original vote and I do not think that has changed.

Bush will have to decide if he wants to give the rats a big election issue or tick off a few conservative gun owners.

From the statements I have seen on the forum recently, those ticked off conservatives took or threatened to take that vote away prior to this issue.

I will give him the right to make that call and it won't hurt my feelings a bit. I just don't see the importance of fighting this politically.

The main problem is the term "assault weapon".

18 posted on 06/27/2003 7:14:06 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: wirestripper
You should remember a couple of things.

The ban took several attempts before it was finally passed by the slimmest of margins.

The ban would have failed in '94 without the "sunset" provision.

The "sunset" provision was a cynical ploy to allow legislators to have it both ways and duck responsibility for their vote. The claim was that it was only temporary and that if it did not result in a substantial decrease in crime it would be allowed to sunset.
Anyone who is familiar with the facts knows that "AW's" never were commonly used in crime, so a substantial reduction in crime being due to the ban is impossible.

Even Bubba Klintoon lamented how many D's he lost in comngress as a result of the AW ban's passage.
Gun owners are one of the strongest voting blocks in the country!

These "sunset" provisions are vile things when they are used to excuse trashing the constitution, we need to send a clear message that we will no longer tolerate this sort of cynical abuse from our elected officials.
41 posted on 06/27/2003 8:33:17 PM PDT by Richard-SIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: wirestripper
"Assault Weapon" as used in the ban legislation is a pejorative based on a convienent political fiction, it has no basis in reality!

One of the Klintoon/HCI stooges noticed that most non-gunowners could not tell the difference between a semi and full-auto military appearing gun. The seditionist conspiring to destroy our RKBA and traditional America siezed on this to create their AW myth.

The proper term would now be "Homeland Defense" weapons.
42 posted on 06/27/2003 8:38:29 PM PDT by Richard-SIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | 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