[johnny7]

“... I'm not anti-gun. I think soldiers, the police and certain other law enforcement officials should have guns. Civilians, however... ”

I get it now! It's the stupid civilians.

[Support Free Republic]

LOOK! Another Freeper Just Gave To The Cause! WAY TO GO!
	We Salute Free Republic's Donors! Be one! Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Grit]

I'm not anti-gun. I think soldiers, the police and certain other law enforcement officials should have guns.

He's not anti-gun. He's pro police state.

What an idiot.

[Egon]

Congratulations, Mr. Herbert, you just made my list too!

[Rob45and2]

The is none, nada, zip, absolutly no evidence that any gun laws have EVER had a positive influence on crime. I challenge anyone to show any credible evidence that restrictive gun laws work.

[fporretto]

But Johnny, Bob Herbert is a liberal. Therefore, he's morally superior to the rest of us. Therefore, he's allowed to say things like that.

And these people wonder why the country is turning rightward.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

[.45MAN]

Thanks for the post. This is definately a bookmark..
Sorry to see that you live in MassatwoSh*t's, that's Kerry and Kennedy.

[TN4Liberty]

"Between 1968, the year of Johnson's failure to get his legislation passed, and 2001, the last year for which complete statistics are available, more than one million Americans were killed by firearms."

That is 28,571 people per year. I don't believe that for a second.

[OXENinFLA]

Civilians, however, should be required to demonstrate a good reason for having firearms.

How's this?

[dyed_in_the_wool]

If I substituted 'speech' for 'guns' in this article, would Bob Herbert still feel the same way?

[dyed_in_the_wool]

If 18 of the 19 hijackers had state issued driver's licenses, what would that imply for gun registration?

[joesnuffy]

“... I'm not anti-gun. I think soldiers, the police and certain other law enforcement officials should have guns. Civilians, however... ”

what about criminals...gang bangers, rapists, muggers, home invaders, burglars, ...how about them will they also be allowed to have guns....

No?...of course not....

Whew...that's a relief...disarming everyone except the police, the military and some para military or para police...what a great idea

Sounds like Argentina Germany The Soviet Union China N Korea Vietnam all have the right idea..

[Marauder]

The big question in my mind is: Which of these individuals and groups fully realize the consequences of registration and subsequent confiscation?

These I guess would be the people discussed in Ann Coulter's Treason.

The rest of them just go along with the hype. Very few surprises among the actors and directors. What is it about being able to sing and/or memorize lines and evoke fake emotion makes a person so politically naive?

[xzins]

Civilians, however, should be required to demonstrate a good reason for having firearms.

My good reason is my right of self-defense granted me by God and spelled out in the 2nd amendment.

The author's an idiot.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

keep

[Joe Brower]

[FreePaul]

I'm not anti-first amendment.
I do think that anyone who writes for public consumption should have to demonstrate that there is a need for their writing, that they are trained in the art of communication and have only lawful intentions.
They should be required to demonstrate their abilities and qualifications to the federal government, state government and any other municipal authority which wants to become involved.
The license to write should only be issued to those free of any criminal convictions, charges or suspicions.
Any writing materials should be available only to holders of a federal writers license.
In order to transmit any written material the writer must have a concealed carry license from local authorities if so required.

These would not infringe upon the rights guaranteed by the first amendment but would act to protect the citizens, especially the children, from injury caused by exposure to dangerous writing.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Civilians, however, should be required to demonstrate a good reason for having firearms.

On his way back to mainland China, Bob Herbert said he wipes his butt with the US Constitution.

[556x45]

What he said:
"but I'm not anti-gun. I think soldiers, the police and certain other law enforcement officials should have guns. Civilians, however, should be required to demonstrate a good reason for having firearms."

really means:
I'm not antigun. I think various govt agencies that can be politically controlled should have them. I also think I should have them as well. However, the guy next door shouldn't. He can't be trusted. I'm completely trustworthy though b/c I'm morally superior.

What he said:
"We should go to great lengths to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals and insane people. All guns should be registered. And all gun owners should be properly trained and licensed."

really means:
We should kill or permanently imprison anyone who doesn't think 'gun control' is right. We should have the power to snoop in their everyday affairs w/o restraint. This is reasonable b/c these are dangerous people. Further more children should be indoctrinated w/ the anti-gun message early. Then, later in life, they'll follow the party line w/o question or thought. Those very few squeaky clean who can still qualify to own a gun should be registered and required to continue to jump thru endless hoops. If this doesn't discourage them then we'll make more laws to make them criminals. Those of us who are morally superior should be allowed to own guns w/o restriction. After all we're very important people.

What he said:
"No number of gun-related fatalities or serious injuries is sufficient to deter the N.R.A. from its fanatical course."

really means:
Any gun related injury or fatality is an excuse to make sure common people are prohibited from owning guns.

What he said:
"Instead of fighting to end this threat to the public's safety, the gun lobby and its allies in Congress are pushing legislation that would protect the practice by granting special immunity from liability to gun manufacturers and sellers."

really means:
I have no facts to back my position so I'll write amorphous feel good tripe to make those doing the right thing look bad. If I were in charge I would do the right thing for myself b/c I'm morally superior and more important.

What he said:
"The N.R.A. Web site and its enemies list (which looks like nothing so much as a broad cross-section of America)"

really means:
Only commies and enemies of the US are on this list. How insensitive of them. Why can't the commoners see the error of their ways and join us of superior ideology?

What he said:
"the new group and its site are inviting people to volunteer for a spot on the N.R.A. enemies list. Ah, free expression."

really means:
I think the NRA and its agents should be outlawed b/c they've making me look bad. I agree w/ Bill Clinton that the avg American has too many freedoms. We should limit them severely. What they really need is a ruling class to guide them thru life. We, the liberals, are the right choice to be that ruling class b/c we're mroally superior.

[sport]

bump

[Mo1]

All of the groups and individuals listed are supposed to be anti-gun. I can't speak for the Kansas City Chiefs or Moon Zappa, but I'm not anti-gun. I think soldiers, the police and certain other law enforcement officials should have guns. Civilians, however, should be required to demonstrate a good reason for having firearms. We should go to great lengths to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals and insane people. All guns should be registered

Sorry .. but he IS anti-guns

And when did we start selling guns to children??