Posted on 06/10/2010 5:03:27 AM PDT by marktwain
On Sept. 1, 1970, Nevada Assemblymember Harry Reid won the Democratic primary election for lieutenant governor with 82 percent of the vote.
That landslide was expected, but Reid did not let up after his victory. Before the primary, there had been some talk about his being soft on gun ownership. So he moved quickly after his win to eliminate any doubt. His campaign put out a statement in which he attacked a federal gun control law, apparently the measure enacted in 1968 after the murders of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.
“I have been a consistent critic of the federal gun control law which has caused far more problems than it has remedied,” Reid said in the statement that was carried in a Reno newspaper on Sept. 14, 1970. “Every legitimate hunter who has sought to hunt in other states knows exactly what I am talking about. Since Nevada depends on tourism and hunting as a source of income, we have a major responsibility to keep federal red tape from hampering these activities.”
In those early years of his career, no one really questioned Reid’s stance on gun control, in part because there was a lot of hunting lore surrounding him. Toward the end of that campaign for lieutenant governor when it became clear the Democrats were going to do well in the election, Reid told Democratic candidate for governor Mike O’Callaghan that after the election they should get away and go hunting. O’Callaghan eyed his former student who would soon become first in the line of succession for the governorship and quipped, “I’m never going hunting with you.”
In those days the National Rifle Association (NRA) was on the fringes of politics, regarded as a group of zealots.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsreview.com ...
And the Second Amendment was never about hunting.
Well, the NRA is flirting with the “fringe” at present-by endorsing Juan McCain in AZ,,,,,,,,,,,,
Not really, their goal is to prevent the encroachment of our 2nd Amendment rights. NOT to elect conservatives. Know and understand their role, and you won’t be so upset when they do what they do.
Hence why, under 2 years of unchecked Democrat power, we’ve INCREASED our gun rights by allowing CCW in national parks.
What “assault weapons” are you talking about?
You probably think the 1994 “assualt weapons ban” actually banned “assault weapons” and you would be wrong.
The 1994 law merely banned cosmetic features on semi-automatic weapons.
Items banned by the so-called “assault weapons ban” included:
Bayonet Lugs, needed to prevent bayonet charges by rival gangs and reduce the number of drive-by bayonetings that were being committed.
Pistol Grips, needed to prevent, well nothing, but having one could make a gun look “evil” or sinister.
Flash Suppressor, needed to prevent, well nothing, but having one could make a gun look “evil” or sinister.
Folding, Telescoping or Collapible Stocks, needed to prevent someone from making a long gun slightly shorter. This type of stock usually reduced the overall lenght of a rifle by 6-10 inches, meaning that a rifle with a 20 inch barrel that was 42 inches long would be 32-36 inches long. These types of stocks usually reduced the weight of a rifle by about one pound.
Grenade Launchers, actually the muzzle devices which enable the launching or firing of rifle grenades, this would in fact be the 22mm (outside diameter) flash suppressor found on many (usually military style) semi-automatic rifles. Banning this did not ban rifle grenades, because rifle grenades that contain explosives are already cover by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Inert rifle grenades are not federally regulated, although some states do regulate them. And the point of banning these was to prevent, well nothing, but having one could make a gun look “evil” or sinister.
This is how stupid and idiotic the 1994 ban was: take two rifles, the Ruger Mini-14 and the Colt AR-15 and compare them.
The Mini-14, fires the .223 Remington cartridge, uses a 5 round magazine, has a wood stock, no pistol grip, no flash suppressor, no grenade launcher, no bayonet lug.
The AR-15, fires the 5.56mm NATO cartridge, uses a 30 round magazine, has a black synthetic stock (that may be telespocing), a pistol grip, a flash suppressor/grenade launcher and a bayonat lug.
These two weapons, when described look and sound completely different from each other except, the .223 Remington cartridge is the 5.56mm NATO cartridge, the Mini-14 can use 10, 20, 25, 30, 40 and 90 round magazines, the Mini-14 can have a pistol grip with a folding stock and the Mini-14 can have a flash suppressor/grenade laucher.
After the 1994 ban was enacted, Colt continued to produce the AR-15. How did they do it? All they did was remove the bayonet lug and the flash suppressor/grenade launcher and the AR-15 was in compliance with the ban.
Gun Control Advocates, the violence policy center, the brady campaign and even Pres. Clinton were shocked that the “assault weapons ban” could so easily be circumvented by gun manufacturers. They believed that the spirit of the law, a complete ban of so-called semi-automatic assault weapons should overrule the letter of the law, which only banned cosmetic features like pistol grips and bayonet lugs.
All the 1994 “assault weapons ban” really does, is show how little gun control advocates actually know about firearms.
Talon, try to remember the 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting or target shooting, it is about Freedom and Liberty (which includes self defense and personal responsibility).
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.