Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/29/2002 8:16:41 AM EDT
The following text is taken from the May 2002 issue of Playboy, which features an interview with Bill O'Reilly. [b]PLAYBOY:[/b] Explain your view on gun control. [b]O’Reilly:[/b] Like with abortion, you can't even talk about gun control without people running around the house with their arms in the air doing the samba because they feel so threatened. I agree that we have a constitutional right to bear arms. It's against the Constitution to ban handguns. However there is absolutely no excuse for any human being on the face of the earth to use a firearm in the commission of a crime. We should have mandatory federal sentencing for all crimes committed with a gun. [b]PLAYBOY:[/b] Does the right to bear arms include AK-47s? [b]O’Reilly:[/b] No. The state has a right to ban certain weaponry as unnecessary. You don't have a right to have a bazooka in your house. It's a public-safety hazard. You can't have it, and if you don't like it, tough. Remember this the next time this phony conservative writes a book, and wants the world to buy it! Hit him in the wallet, and if he doesn’t like it, "TOUGH!!!"
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:19:31 AM EDT
He didn't say anything about an AR15
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:19:47 AM EDT
I saw that when I was perusing my copy last night. (I got home to the sound of Mrs. QS chanting,"Nudie magazine day! Nudie magazine day!")
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:27:35 AM EDT
On second thought, Fvck him.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:28:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:30:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER: He didn't say anything about an AR15
View Quote
No, but he wouldn't know the difference either. Like most people, he thinks that the so-called assault weapons described generically as "AK-47s" are full auto and somehow more powerfull than other guns. The fact is that most people don't know much about firearms and thay've been conditioned to believe that people who do know about them are dangerous.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:30:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER: He didn't say anything about an AR15
View Quote
I don't think it would matter which "[b]EVIL[/b]" rifle you put in the question. He obviously knows nothing about them. He just hears buzz words and sees pictures of those sinister weapons and knee jerks right along with the other sheeple. He would probably think a mini 14 is ok, but not an AR, it's black you know.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:31:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 8:32:14 AM EDT by NYPatriot]
Gunrunner, I hope your tongue was in your cheek when you typed that. AK-47, AR15, etc... they are all the same scary weapon to those that want to restrict their ownership! Maybe we should drop Mr. O'Reilly a few E-mails at [email]oreilly@foxnews.com[/email], and explain to him the real meaning and purpose of the 2nd. Amendment.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 8:50:40 AM EDT
can't wait for the bill and rosie show. it's on its way..
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:09:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NYPatriot: [b]PLAYBOY:[/b] Does the right to bear arms include AK-47s? [b]O’Reilly:[/b] No. You don't have a right to have a bazooka in your house.
View Quote
AK-47 = bazooka????? Bill violates fundamental laws of argumentation. 1. Straw man. The question was NOT about bazookas, it was about AK47's. It would be as bad as it he responded - "NO, no one should be allowed to have nukes in their basement." 2. Guilt by association. Is an AK47 as destructive as a bazooka? NO. Then bazookas should NOT be brought into an argument about whether people should be allowed to own AK47's. 3. Begging the question. O'Reilly assumes that ownership of an item guarantees a crime will be commited with the item. This is NOT true, whether of bazookas or AK's. 4. Undistributed middle. Two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property. Just becuase AK's AND bazookas (two separeate categories) are implements of war (a common property) DOES NOT mean they are connected in any way as to being evil, or restricted from ownership. I could go on, but see more here: Stephen's Logical Fallacies [url]www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:14:07 AM EDT
Here is my email to bill: I just read an expert from your interview with Playboy, and need to correct your statements in some areas. Concerning the following quotes: PLAYBOY: Explain your view on gun control. O’Reilly: Like with abortion, you can't even talk about gun control without people running around the house with their arms in the air doing the samba because they feel so threatened. I agree that we have a constitutional right to bear arms. It's against the Constitution to ban handguns. However there is absolutely no excuse for any human being on the face of the earth to use a firearm in the commission of a crime. We should have mandatory federal sentencing for all crimes committed with a gun. PLAYBOY: Does the right to bear arms include AK-47s? O’Reilly: No. The state has a right to ban certain weaponry as unnecessary. You don't have a right to have a bazooka in your house. It's a public-safety hazard. You can't have it, and if you don't like it, tough. In the first paragraph, you are pretty well on track. It is true that people who believe strongly in the Second Amendment of the Constitution sometimes become defensive when their rights are attacked and compromised. Its funny how the media is always defending the First Amendment, but seem to care less about the second. I would guess job security is the main reason for this phenomena. You seem to fall into this bracket Bill. I have never once seen you do a segment on the importance of the right to keep and bear arms, and I have never seen you openly defend the Second Amendment either. You are correct however, to suggest that prosecution of violent felons who use guns is the key to stopping crime. Pro Second Amendment groups have been saying this for decades, but most people are blind to the facts. The Clinton-Reno administration was one of the most anti-gun administrations ever to be, and they also had one of the worst records for prosecuting crimes involving guns. Doesn't make much sense does it? In the second quote, you are completely off base. In this statement, you very clearly demonstrate your lack of knowledge in the area of guns, and what they are capable of. You have obviously been brain washed by the media to view certain guns as 'Evil', even though there is no basis in reality for this perception. You see, the media combined with anti gun organizations have successfully disseminated propaganda that makes people believe certain guns are more powerful simply based on their looks. My question to you is this. What makes an AK-47 any more dangerous than a handgun, or a shotgun, or any selfloading hunting rifle? Let me guess, your answer is 'an AK-47 can fire fully automatic'. Well this is just not true, it is illegal to own any gun that fires fully automatic in the US (there are some exceptions). But that is your general perception isn't it? An AK-47, in its semi-auto variation, is no more effective at killing than any of the other guns I listed above, nor is it a 'public-safety hazard'.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:14:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 9:19:19 AM EDT by jamon]
As far as the state having the right to ban certain weapons, I'm sure the King of Britain believed the same thing right before the American colonists left Britain's shores. And lets be clear about this. Most defenders of the Second Amendment are not fighting for the right to own rocket propelled grenades. Nor are they defending the right to own land mines, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, or any other such weapons. But what they are defending is the right to own guns, even the ones that you and your media friends deem 'Evil'. So you are kind of comparing apples and oranges in your comment. Put it this way Bill. You try to portray yourself as a defender of this country, our Constitution, and our free way of life. But be aware, if you do not FULLY support the Second Amendment to our Constitution, and defend it vigorously against all of its opponents, then you are not a true American, and you are doing the founders of this country a grave disservice.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:14:52 AM EDT
O'Reilly is a conservative who has a lot of common sense. He just happens to be WRONG in this case. Send him an email and let him know. At least he's fair on his show which is more than you could ever expect from Sarah Brady
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:20:27 AM EDT
So muzlblast, do you support COMMON SENSE gun laws like the assault weapon ban?
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:23:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 9:25:27 AM EDT by drfcolt]
Posted my "jamon": "it is illegal to own any gun that fires fully automatic in the US (there are some exceptions)." Since when? What's an NFA weapon? If you don't know the law, then don't try to quote it.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:24:38 AM EDT
Well put Jamon! I am kind of neutral in my opinion of O'Reilly. I really enjoy it when he sticks it to the blithering idiot liberals on things, but he can really piss me off too. Doesn't he realize it is the 2nd Amendment that keeps the 1st Amendment safe? Furthermore, he should realize that it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to interpret the Constitution and not his, or Congress's. Unfortunately for us, they are sitting back right now while their power is being usurped by all the gun-banning pricks in Congress.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:26:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By drfcolt: Posted my "jamon": "it is illegal to own any gun that fires fully automatic in the US (there are some exceptions)." Since when? What's an NFA weapon? If you don't know the law, then don't try to quote it. Now you made a fool of yourself in an e-mail to a jerk like O'Reilly.
View Quote
Hello??? Anyone home?? What do you think "There are some exceptions to this" means? I know the law. The point is, unless you go thru a very special licensing process, which is only available in some states, then it is illegal. Try comprehending what people post before commenting.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:28:09 AM EDT
Let's get those emails flowing in guys! Keep on them, and drive the point home!
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:31:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 9:38:13 AM EDT by drfcolt]
Originally Posted By jamon:
Originally Posted By drfcolt: Posted my "jamon": "it is illegal to own any gun that fires fully automatic in the US (there are some exceptions)." Since when? What's an NFA weapon? If you don't know the law, then don't try to quote it. Now you made a fool of yourself in an e-mail to a jerk like O'Reilly.
View Quote
Hello??? Anyone home?? What do you think "There are some exceptions to this" means? I know the law. The point is, unless you go thru a very special licensing process, which is only available in some states, then it is illegal. Try comprehending what people post before commenting.
View Quote
NFA ownership is legal in MOST states. NOT being legal is the EXCEPTION. Less than 10 states do NOT allow NFA weapons. It's not a license, it's a ONE TIME TAX of $200. Only dealers must have a licsence, similar to an FFL but at the next level. That part of your post is misleading. The rest is great.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:34:43 AM EDT
E-mail away!!!!! ...basically what I said above, plus this... [i]I could go on, but my point is sufficiently documented. Except for one additional item: Comments like these illustrate an ignorance in you on the subject of which you speak. I own several AK-47-type firearms. One is used in sanctioned competitions. Another I have specifically designed for home defense, and is the MOST appropriate tool for the job (more so than a shotgun or a handgun) BOTH cost FAR more than any criminal would pay. I sincerely hope you will take the time to educate yourself as to the Founding Fathers intent that the citizenry be armed with weapons of present day military usage. They certainly didn't want the citizens armed with lances to have to fight a British army armed with Brown Bess muskets. No more than they would want me armed with muskets to defend liberty against those armed with AK47-type rifles. Comments like these remove any desire to buy your books, or watch your TV show. Informed comments on gun rights would make me interested in those things again. And if you don't like that (to quote you) "tough." Signed , garandman [/i] Oh, dont' forget...name and town...name and town. [}:D]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:37:09 AM EDT
i sent my email. thanks garandman for reminding me of "name and town!" now im going to call in sick to see if he addresses the issues tonight. it will be tonight right?
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:51:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By drfcolt:
Originally Posted By jamon:
Originally Posted By drfcolt: Posted my "jamon": "it is illegal to own any gun that fires fully automatic in the US (there are some exceptions)." Since when? What's an NFA weapon? If you don't know the law, then don't try to quote it. Now you made a fool of yourself in an e-mail to a jerk like O'Reilly.
View Quote
Hello??? Anyone home?? What do you think "There are some exceptions to this" means? I know the law. The point is, unless you go thru a very special licensing process, which is only available in some states, then it is illegal. Try comprehending what people post before commenting.
View Quote
NFA ownership is legal in MOST states. NOT being legal is the EXCEPTION. Less than 10 states do NOT allow NFA weapons. It's not a license, it's a ONE TIME TAX of $200. Only dealers must have a licsence, similar to an FFL but at the next level. That part of your post is misleading. The rest is great.
View Quote
I understand your point, but I was not about to get this technical in order to get my point across.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 10:04:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
View Quote
AK-47 = bazooka????? Eric T. HUN violates fundamental laws of argumentation. 1. Straw man. 2. Guilt by association. 3. Begging the question. 4. Undistributed middle. I could go on, but see more here: Eric T. Huns Logical Fallacies [url]www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm[/url]
View Quote
[:D]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 10:13:25 AM EDT
Somebody post O'Rielly's email address so I can vent my spleen. [;)]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 10:17:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 10:18:34 AM EDT by Boomholzer]
[size=4][b]"Hey, O'Reilly; factor this!"[/b][size=4] [50] [heavy]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 10:25:41 AM EDT
subslr- OUCH!!!!!!!! [}:D] marvl - email is oreilly@foxnews.com GIVE HIM SOME SPLEEN, BABY!!!!!
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 10:32:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: subslr- OUCH!!!!!!!! [}:D]
View Quote
Many of Eric's posts I have 'transformed'. (But he'll never suspect it was me ! In fact he'll be too pissed to notice the perp.)
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 10:50:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Originally Posted By garandman: subslr- OUCH!!!!!!!! [}:D]
View Quote
Many of Eric's posts I have 'transformed'. (But he'll never suspect it was me ! In fact he'll be too pissed to notice the perp.)
View Quote
I was framed, I tell ya.... [:D] Like Hun could POSSIBLY be more pissed at me!! [}:D] Yer gonna cause the poor boy a coronary!!! He's gonna stroke out and start cussing me in Yiddish!!! Then I'm gonna get accused of praying that he'd keel over (which of COURSE I NEVER have[}:D] ) and I'm gonna go to jail, and worse, get banned from Ar15.com. All cuz of you. Thanx alot. [}:D] And no, you can't have my gunz while I'm in jail.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 10:52:39 AM EDT
Sent to O'Really? Bill, do you really think a semi-automatic AK47 is a "public-safety hazard" and comparable to a bazooka? The AK47 cartridge is less lethal compared with most North American hunting bullets. A cartridge with similar energy compared with the AK is the M16 cartridge used by our military. It's a favorite among varmint hunters out west, but too small for deer hunting.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 10:57:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: And no, you can't have my gunz while I'm in jail.
View Quote
Aww schittt !
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 10:59:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 11:02:31 AM EDT by AnotherPundit]
O reilly is not a conservative. he is a populist. If you want to persuade him, point out that "assault rifles" cost thousands of dollars and are used in less than one percent of all crimes. Hence, they don't present a significant danger to the public, and there's therefore no reason to restrict them.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 11:11:05 AM EDT
O'Reilly is the same as Bill Maher--confused about his ideology and willing to say anything to get a rise out of his guests. I can't stand him and I can't stand Cavuto or any of those other idiots on tv. They talk out of their ass.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 11:16:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AnotherPundit: O reilly is not a conservative. he is a populist. If you want to persuade him, point out that "assault rifles" cost thousands of dollars and are used in less than one percent of all crimes. Hence, they don't present a significant danger to the public, and there's therefore no reason to restrict them.
View Quote
Here's my reply to Mr. Bill: (I borrowed AnotherPundit's quote in my email...hope that's okay) Bill, I read today your recent interview in Playboy. Having been a longtime viewer of The Factor, I was sorry to read your misinterpretation of the second amendment and your villification of those that choose to own military-styled rifles as being a "public-safety" hazard. These weapons are demonized by yourself and others in the media simply because of their appearance and your lack of understanding of their function, the (mostly unconstitutional)laws that govern their possession or their actual power. An Ak-47 uses a less powerful round than most "pretty" hunting rifles. Comparing an AK-47 to a Bazooka is like comparing a rowboat to an Aircraft Carrier. These, ahem,[i]"assault rifles"*[/i] cost thousands of dollars and are used in less than one percent of all crimes. Hence, they don't present a significant danger to the public, and there's therefore no reason to restrict them. Bill, your're usually spot-on and very well educated on most subjects. Even when I disagree with you, I generally have to think through my position because of your well educated and intelligent arguments. In this instance, you relied on the standard stereotypical media BS regarding gun ownership, and showed the usual ignorance of the subject demonstrated time and again in the media. I expected more from you, Bill. In this instance, you're just flat out wrong. And THAT'S no spin. Sincerely, Pit City and State *(the term "assault rifles" ,copyright 1994, Anti-Gun Media, Inc. and is used totally without permission)
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 11:26:00 AM EDT
yet another person to add to my hit list. (just kidding!) [50][grenade][heavy][pistol][shotgun][sniper]­[uzi][whacko]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 11:26:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AnotherPundit: O reilly is not a conservative. he is a populist. If you want to persuade him, point out that "assault rifles" cost thousands of dollars and are used in less than one percent of all crimes. Hence, they don't present a significant danger to the public, and there's therefore no reason to restrict them.
View Quote
I think Pundit is on to something here, so I spammed O-Really??? another one - [i]Regarding your recent article in Playboy.... Did you realize legal AK47's cost over $5,000 here in the US, are HEAVILY restricted by the Federal gov't, VERY rare, and almost never used in crimes??(The one used in the Hollywood bank robbery was ILLEGALLY obtained, and your bans would NOT have prevented its use, as criminals DON'T CARE about your little ban) If you want to ban a firearm that is statistically significant re: crime, you should ban the Smith & Wesson six shot revolver. It is VERY inexpensive, almost COMPLETELY unregulated, and the NUMBER ONE choice of criminals in the US. The only people you would be disarming then are the poor, inner city working parents who NEED a gun for protection from the thugs you seem to believe are toting AK47's in our streets. I hate to say it, but you obviously have NO IDEA what you were talking about in the Playboy interview. garandman[/i]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 11:29:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 11:34:03 AM EDT by AnotherPundit]
yeah. other thing is, keep 'em short -- 3 to four lines max. Otherwise they won't get read on the air. Try to flatter him as much as possible ("normally i love you but.") Use your name and town. Emphasize benefits to the populace, like target shooting, military readiness, etc.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 11:33:02 AM EDT
Obviously, Mr O Rielly needs some education, but he has done some good out there.. Anyone who is anti Rosie and anti fag, can't be all wrong.. He's got a big audience and a big mouth.. We just need to educate him...
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 11:40:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 11:43:37 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By garandman: AK-47 = bazooka????? Bill violates fundamental laws of argumentation. 1. Straw man. The question was NOT about bazookas, it was about AK47's. It would be as bad as it he responded - "NO, no one should be allowed to have nukes in their basement." 2. Guilt by association. Is an AK47 as destructive as a bazooka? NO. Then bazookas should NOT be brought into an argument about whether people should be allowed to own AK47's. 3. Begging the question. O'Reilly assumes that ownership of an item guarantees a crime will be commited with the item. This is NOT true, whether of bazookas or AK's. 4. Undistributed middle. Two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property. Just becuase AK's AND bazookas (two separeate categories) are implements of war (a common property) DOES NOT mean they are connected in any way as to being evil, or restricted from ownership.
View Quote
[^] ------------------------------------------------ [i]"I agree that we have a constitutional right to bear arms. It's against the Constitution to ban handguns... The state has a right to ban certain weaponry as unnecessary."[/i] [>:/] ------------------------------------------------ [i]"...you can't even talk about gun control without people running around the house with their arms in the air doing the samba because they feel so threatened."[/i] And yet Bill is one of these idiots running around doing the samba because he feels so threatened by AKs. What a baffoon! Most talking heads know nothing about anything except how to speak eloquently on topics about which they know nothing at all.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 11:46:06 AM EDT
I sent my email.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 12:05:26 PM EDT
Dear Mr. Oreilly I have been a long time watcher of yourself and Fox News. Congratulations on your success. As a shooter, I was unhappy about hearing of your comments in a recent Playboy interview. [i]PLAYBOY: Does the right to bear arms include AK-47s? O’Reilly: No. The state has a right to ban certain weaponry as unnecessary. You don't have a right to have a bazooka in your house. It's a public-safety hazard. You can't have it, and if you don't like it, tough.[/i] You may not know this, but an AK47 as it is in the middle east and an AK-47 as configured in America ARE VERY DIFFERENT. In the US, an AK-47 or AK variant is a semi automatic rifle UNLIKE the full auto machine guns used in the middle east. This is the same as many other sporting US firearms. They are great for self defense, target shooting, and wonderful for plinking cans. The thing that many gun owners find so FRUSTRATING is that the AK-47 is demonized simply because it looks EVIL and SCARY. The problem is that most Americans, presumably including yourself do not shoot. If they did, the taboo and mystique of the rifle would be gone as would the fear of the unknown. We would see a lot fewer inaccuracies and less rhetoric regarding firearms. I am feeling like you may change your position on this issue IF you actually knew the facts rather than the common misconceptions. I would like to extend an invitation to you or your staff to go shooting with me at your earliest convenience.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 12:28:40 PM EDT
Maybe we should invite him to the BRC, all expenses paid. He'll get the education of his life.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 1:39:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rainman: Maybe we should invite him to the BRC, all expenses paid. He'll get the education of his life.
View Quote
Bingo. This needs to be a thread of it's own, however.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 1:39:56 PM EDT
I will cover his ticket and lodging expense, let me know.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 1:40:11 PM EDT
[size=4]Hey guys, be cool, now![/size=4] We need to win this guy's heart and mind on this subject, I certainly don't want to hear this evening's [b]Most Ridiculous Item[/b] being the number of e-mails that he received from pinheads supporting the right to keep and bear bazookas! Calm down, a bit. Then e-mail. Make it your own. Be respectful. The guy's a former Marine and stands about six foot four, or so! Eric The(Peacemaker)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 1:46:13 PM EDT
WOW, I can't believe this. Playboy has articles? :)
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 1:51:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: ...I could go on, but see more here: Stephen's Logical Fallacies [url]www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm[/url]
View Quote
Thanks for that website! Now I can finally win every argument I have with my friends and family! This'll be a dark day for the Dolomite house!
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 2:14:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 2:34:38 PM EDT
Here is mine to Bill Bill AK-47's in the US are generally ALL semi-automatic, not the select fire, fully auto models that are the favorites of guerrilla forces all over the world. The AK's and other so-called "assault weapons" are neverthless, whether one version or the other, a military weapon that is fully compatible with the definition of "arms" in the 2nd Amendment. You should get someone on the show to research this to your satisfaction. You will guns like these(AR-15's) at National Shooting Contests that involve both the military and civilian population, including young men and women. nightstalker AR-15.com (No, I didn't sign it thusly) PS I hope your libertarian tendencies rule the day and that you'll re-assess the issue without the emotion that you bemoan in your remarks. These aren't bazookas. Put the straw man to bed.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 2:40:44 PM EDT
Look at what he said: Like with abortion, you can't even talk about gun control without people running around the house with their arms in the air doing the samba because they feel so threatened. [b]He identified people as passionate about their belief.[/b] I agree that we have a constitutional right to bear arms. [b]No problem.[/b] It's against the Constitution to ban handguns. [b]True[/b] However there is absolutely no excuse for any human being on the face of the earth to use a firearm in the commission of a crime. [b]He is against criminals with guns.[/b] We should have mandatory federal sentencing for all crimes committed with a gun. [b]True.[/b] No. The state has a right to ban certain weaponry as unnecessary. [b]They can and do , read NJ, CA, but he does not say the Feds can or should.[/b] You don't have a right to have a bazooka in your house. [b]Open to debate.[/b] You can't have it, and if you don't like it, tough. [b]With the proper license, unless it is banned by the state.[/b]
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 2:51:51 PM EDT
Interviews in Playboy??? I only read the pictures.
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 2:58:00 PM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top