🚀 go-pugleaf

dick makes very good points - I would like to point out that one of the
"great  thinkers (lol) " of the gun control issue- Ted Kennedy -
has killed more people with his car then all of my guns combined.

Follow that line of thinking -  Why do you need to buy ice cream or
cigarrettes?  you know they are bad for you -

More "free thinking " individuals  who would take your freedoms because they
care not to exercise them on a personal level .


Dick <tjdick@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7v7n2a$g9g$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> > >Who the hell needs semi-automatic assult rifles? "protection"
> > >my ass.
> > >
> > > - the very opiniated bret
> >
> In article <381106AE.5576DBAE@mindspring.com>,
>   Barbara Lake <bglake@mindspring-IFIGHTSPAM.com> wrote:
> >
> >No one needs a semi-automatic weapon.  Period.
> >
>
> No one needs to shave her eyebrows off and then paint them back, either,
> but I don't preach that no one else needs to do it, nor seek to ban that
> practice.
>
> A revolver fires a shot on each pull of the trigger, just as a
> "semi-automatic," a term that has become trendy in mainstream news.  So
> what's the difference?  Revolvers and semi-automatic pistols (excuse me,
> that's "handguns" these days) are absolutely essential for home defense,
> where long guns are impractical.
>
> In case you *were* referring to semi-automatic long guns (which Bret
> labels "assault weapons," an alarmist media term), I would like to
> remind you and Jesse Jackson that the Second Amendment has zero to do
> with hunting.
>
> My personal reason for shooting paramilitary-style rifles is that their
> ammunition is usually an order of magnitude cheaper (probably due to
> mass production).
>
> "Hate Crimes Grow in our Garden of Bias Against Anyone Different,"
> Barbara, and the media has been trying to make us legal, harmless
> firearms owners the different ones.  Black Americans no longer have to
> sit in the back of the bus or use separate facilities, and gays are not
> only protected by policy, but also by the court of public opinion.  We
> firearms owners are not about to be ostracized to their old positions of
> shame due to the actions of a few madmen.
>
> Criminals do not obey prohibitions; these restrictions only affect us
> law-abiders.
>
> My firearms ownership / usage has NEVER been harmful to ANYONE, animals
> included.  It will stay that way unless someone tries to kill me in my
> own home.  Men have tried to kill me for the contents of my pockets
> (which I would have surrendered had they only asked).  If you think
> these crimes are too unlikely to worry about, I can send you some recent
> newspaper clippings to prove that point.  (Of course, none of
> these people live in palatial estates as Barbra Streisand or
> Rosie O'Donnell do.)  Firearms are more often used defensively (often
> without firing a shot) than used to commit crimes.  [Florida SU study
> which I do not have here with me but will be happy to find for you.]
>
>
> > My argument with Lockyer's position is the possibility of
> > criminal action against those who now turn in said guns (since his
> > department has invalidated late (but then legal) registrations), and
> the
> > lack of compensation for personal property.  Look for a slew of people
> > claiming theft of their weapons.
> >
> > Barbara
>
> If you are referring to the Fifth Amendment, it says that private
> property shall not be taken "for public use" without just compensation.
> I am not sure confiscation constitutes public "use."
>
> NOTE TO ALL:  Firearms owners are NOT criminals, any more than gays are
> child molesters or national security risks or whatever.  Get off our
> backs and enforce the plethora of EXTREMELY restrictive laws that
> California now has (like SB23 which bans Bret's "assault weapons"
> starting 65 days from now).
>
> http://www.recalldavis.com/
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.