Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 5/15/2003 7:04:41 AM EDT
I don't have a link to the original but as reported in my local paper quoted from San Jose Mercury News on Tuesday> Headline reads "Assault weapons ban renewal needs Bush's help" The article is so full of bullshit and misinformation it just pisses me off to no end. " What's clear is that lifting the ban will mean more assult weapons on the market_and more crimes like the one at 101 California Street in CA 10 yrs ago that left 8 dead. It shouldn't take another blood bath for Congress to renew it- or a president who hopes to carry California in next years election to support it activly." If memory serves me correctly, weren't the weapons involved in this incident fully automatic and illegal? Need some feedback before i go off the hook on the times. R2K
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 7:11:04 AM EDT
Letters to the editor, man. If it's an online newspaper, provide us with a link to the story, WE'LL hammer the journalist/publisher and do letters to the editor. Don't just bitch about it. Call in the ARFCOM Army to BLAST those bitches!!
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 7:19:47 AM EDT
[url]http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/5848919.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 7:29:19 AM EDT
Well, the liberal news media is doing a full-court press to try to get the AWB '94 renewed. Not a chance, since Bill C already said that the gun control issue caused Al Gore to lose several key states, and the lost of some vehement & zealous anti-gunners in the election of 2002. I don't think that many politicos want to touch the gun-control issue unless they are in 100% safe districts or states.
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 7:32:32 AM EDT
Apparently the complete original article was published by the San Jose Merucry Times on tuesady, may 13. The beaver county times republisged it under "Other Voices" today. The original author appears to be Knight Ridder. Letters to the editor for BCT can be sent to Beaver County Times PO Box 400 Beaver PA 15009 Faxed to 724-775-4180 or e-mailed to timesletters@timesonline.com I'm already writing as we speak.
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 7:35:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NoVaGator: [url]http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/5848919.htm[/url]
View Quote
thanks for the link.
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 8:08:13 AM EDT
This is an "op-ed" (opinion-editorial), not an article. Writing a Letter to the Editor is certainly a good idea. However, I think that you get more bang for the buck by writing to reporters. I have been doing that for about 5 years now, and have seen some positive improvement in their news coverage. With regards to the AW ban, please be sure to refer them to: [url]http://www.awbansunset.com[/url]
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 8:18:59 AM EDT
I don't get it. This makes the 3rd or 4th "opinion" I've read asking GW to [b]actively work[/b] for the AWB extension. And simply because he made a statement about it over two years ago? Why would anyone expect a Republican president to give a piece of Democratic legislation some assistance? Did Clinton ever go to the wall for any Republican authored legislation? Never mind what the subject is, it's not his responsibility to give the Dems a helping hand... let them do their own dirty work. Besides, I have little doubt this whole renewd push for a ban was carefully orchestrated months ago. Recall that not very long ago legislators and journalists had been trying to get a clear message from GW and Ashcroft regarding the ban. Fleischer made the statement that the president "supports the current ban", and the anti's have been giddy ever since. Now all of a sudden there's two radically different bills proposed.
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 11:21:25 AM EDT
Just heard from the Beaver County Times. They will be publishing my letter to the editor on Teusday, May 20th. It was a good decision on their part because I was going to bombard them with letters until one was published. One more step in the right direction for us gunners. Hopefull others will do some research and see the light as well as the truth. R2K
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 12:00:00 PM EDT
anyone got a link for the idiots.. I mean authors email?
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 12:53:55 PM EDT
Actually, the weapons used in the 101 California St. were legal semi-automatic weapons. Gian Luigi Ferri had a .45 auto and two semi-auto intratec dc-9's. He had legaly bought the two intratecs two months before, in Las Vegas. The only difference at that time was that there was a 15 day wait in CA and none in NV. The papers and news coverage all said that he used Tec-9's, but I found something interesting while looking this up. One paper article said this:
Although California has had a law banning certain automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons since 1989, the particular model used in Thursday's shooting is not on the list of banned weapons, according to the state attorney general's office. A similar gun produced by the same manufacturer, however, is banned, according to government officials.
View Quote
Well, the Tec-9 was banned by the 1989 Roberti-Roos assault weapons ban. So, it had to be a dc-9 that was used. But if you read the articles about that shooting, they all say that it was a "Tec-9 Assault Weapon." The fact that these were "legal" was the main argument from the antis.
"There is absolutely no reason why a weapon like this should be legal," said San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan yesterday. "This is a weapon of war and only war."
View Quote
Links [url]www.zpub.com/sf/1993/ferri.html[/url] [url]http://www.zpub.com/sf/1993/ferrib.html[/url]
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 1:08:38 PM EDT
"There is absolutely no reason why a weapon like this should be legal," said San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan yesterday. "This is a weapon of war and only war."
View Quote
Yeah, thats why you see lot's of them in Iraq and Afghanistan. All the GI's love their Tec-9s! I think the military ought to adopt a belt-fed Tec-9 upper that is loaded with cop killas. That cop killa can go right through dose T-72's.
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 1:10:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By serrada: Actually, the weapons used in the 101 California St. were legal semi-automatic weapons. Gian Luigi Ferri had a .45 auto and two semi-auto intratec dc-9's. He had legaly bought the two intratecs two months before, in Las Vegas. The only difference at that time was that there was a 15 day wait in CA and none in NV. The papers and news coverage all said that he used Tec-9's, but I found something interesting while looking this up. One paper article said this:
Although California has had a law banning certain automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons since 1989, the particular model used in Thursday's shooting is not on the list of banned weapons, according to the state attorney general's office. A similar gun produced by the same manufacturer, however, is banned, according to government officials.
View Quote
Well, the Tec-9 was banned by the 1989 Roberti-Roos assault weapons ban. So, it had to be a dc-9 that was used. But if you read the articles about that shooting, they all say that it was a "Tec-9 Assault Weapon." The fact that these were "legal" was the main argument from the antis.
"There is absolutely no reason why a weapon like this should be legal," said San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan yesterday. "This is a weapon of war and only war."
View Quote
Links [url]www.zpub.com/sf/1993/ferri.html[/url] [url]http://www.zpub.com/sf/1993/ferrib.html[/url]
View Quote
Hmm sure looks to be to be a Cobray M11 on the first page of the link not a tec 9. I confused this event with another in my letter to the editor but the message was still clear as far as the ban being a bunch of bullshit. As for the tec 9, I wouldn't put my ass on the line if thats all I had. Took an AB10 as partial trade once. what a piece of junk. It's a real jamomatic.
Top Top