wrote in a letter to the FTC that sniper weapons are different from standard hunting rifles because they are designed to strike a target from a distance Hmmm. So the deer hunters are strolling up to their prey and just blasting them point blank? Interesting ...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
To: John Jorsett
The dims are so desperate that they will seize on this as a campaign issue for November...look for lots of anti-NRA and Ashcroft stuff coming out. More crap about cop-killer bullets and plastic guns, etc.
It's sad but the dims have been hoping for a case like this for a long time. They are probably sending thank you tarot cards to the killer right now. You can't demonize guns and gun owners without a good demon now and then.
46 posted on
10/10/2002 3:16:37 PM PDT by
Sender
To: John Jorsett
sniper weapons are different from standard hunting rifles because they are designed to strike a target from a distance. Regular hunting rifles are meant to be used as clubs to bash prey over the head with.
To: John Jorsett
Yeah, I remember the 1 Mile target at Parris Island, the one way out there floating on the water...
To: John Jorsett
three fellow House Democrats wrote in a letter to the FTC that sniper weapons are different from standard hunting rifles because they are designed to strike a target from a distance. And this alone shows such ignorance as to bar these fools from any further debate on the issue.
58 posted on
10/10/2002 3:34:14 PM PDT by
IronJack
To: John Jorsett
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan Would somebody please arrest this ghoul for impersonating a human being?
60 posted on
10/10/2002 3:37:03 PM PDT by
steve-b
To: John Jorsett
Those people are idiots!
62 posted on
10/10/2002 3:44:44 PM PDT by
relee
To: John Jorsett
73 posted on
10/10/2002 4:11:52 PM PDT by
mvpel
To: John Jorsett
I'm dumbfounded by the idiocy displayed by these bureaucracy-makers. Can someone please whack some intelligence into these people...preferably with a sledgehammer?
79 posted on
10/10/2002 4:25:43 PM PDT by
GnL
To: John Jorsett
To: John Jorsett
Well, it is nice to see that Rep. John Conyers is joining Sarah Brady and the VPC in dancing gleefully on the graves of the victims in the DC area, and continuing the lies and distortions that have characterised their agenda from day 1.
This article is particularly idiotic, and I believe even many mild-mannered sheeple will see through it (sniper rifles are different from standard hunting rifles because they are designed to strike a target from a distance ... huh???)
The quickness with which these gun grabbers have re-emerged from their exile to take advantage of this situation is astonishing (and transparent.) Nothing like the blood of the innocent at the hands of a madman to get the debate going again on firearms control ... a debate that had pretty much died after 9/11. Now it is back on the front page, the lies can start again, the coffers can be refilled by the ignorant, and the laid off workers can be rehired.
83 posted on
10/10/2002 4:31:19 PM PDT by
spodefly
To: John Jorsett
Guess if I'm going to get that Maadi .50 rifle I'd better go get it now.
If nothing else these idiot Dims will boost gun sales just before the holidays.
To: John Jorsett
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee (news - web sites), and three fellow House Democrats wrote in a letter to the FTC that sniper weapons are different from standard hunting rifles because they are designed to strike a target from a distance. Huh? Standard hunting rifles ARE sniper weapons. A .308 bolt action rifle with a scope is employed by MANY police departments for that very purpose.
"Their accuracy and range capabilities make these weapons among the most dangerous available today," the lawmakers said. "They can hit targets accurately one mile away and can inflict damage to targets up to four miles away."
Duh, that would be a .50 caliber rifle, which has NEVER been used in a crime here in the US. The Maryland sniper is using a varmint round, the .223. A .50 caliber on the other hand can punch a hole through a manhole cover...
To: John Jorsett
The part that bothers me is this myth:
"There is no legitimate purpose for a military rifle than to make war," Conyers said. "There is no reason these rifles should be marketed to civilians."
The reason we have the second amendment is that a bunch of civilians (colonists) were being attacked by their government (British). They had arms, formed a militia, fought back, and maintained their freedom. In order to maintain a free nation, the civilian population must be able to *literally* fight against tyranny of the government, with weapons, if necessary.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
