We do support the concept and vigilant enforcement of common-sense and Constitutional provisions, including

[b]A ban on assault and high-capacity automatic weapons,[/b]

After looking at your site, I saw this page:

http://www.theinternetparty.org/issues/index.php?section_type=iss&cat_name=Gun+Control&td=20011017114814&page_sort=2

"We do support the concept and vigilant enforcement of common-sense and Constitutional provisions, including:

A ban on assault and high-capacity automatic weapons, and"

Therefore I cannot support your site while you put forth false information about assault weapons and regular capacity magazines.  If you look at this:

[url]http://www.flashbunny.org/content/file.8[/url] and the link provided below, You'll see the 'assault weapons' that you wish to ban, and that I personally enjoy, account for a tiny amount of violent crime - smaller than people that are killed with blunt objects. And a ban on high capacity magazines doesn't reduce crime or the number of shots fired during a crime - it merely reduces freedom. It increases the amount of money lawful gun owners need to spend on buying such magazines, and if they don't have them, they have to waste time at the range reloading. And if there ever comes a time where they need more than the government sanctioned 10 rounds in a firearm during an emergency - say a home invasion by multiple intruders - they're out of luck. I find supporting such a position to be distasteful and poorly thought out.

Please do not link to my site until you rectfiy your position on 'assault weapons' and normal capcaity magazines (what you call high capacity) to be in line with the facts and common sense.  I do not wish to further the cause of someone who is fighting against what I support, and does not understand the essence of the second amendment.

I hope you will understand that I take freedom and the right of self defense very personally, and do not wish to subject them to emotion instead of facts.

While browsing your sight, I saw the following under your 'gun control' page, saying that you support :

"We do support the concept and vigilant enforcement of common-sense and Constitutional provisions, including:

........A ban on assault and high-capacity automatic weapons, and"

I am sorry, but this is unacceptable and you cannot be considered a pro-gun rights institution.

First, the AR15 type rifles that the Clinton administration referred to as 'assault weapons' are not assault rifles nor 'assault weapons'.  I put that term in quotation marks because it is a fabricated term used to refer to the aforementioned type rifles.  For that matter, anything used to assault someone, i.e. a hammer, a bat, a knife, etc is an assault weapon.  These types of rifles are NOT the choice of criminals due to their cost and the lack of concealability.  You occassionally have nuts like the two in North Hollywood, but laws against these types of rifles made no difference to two convicted felons (no guns of any kind allowed) who illegally obtained ALL of their guns, including the illegal full auto rifles they had.

Second, as for automatic weapons, there have been 2 murders since the 1930s' with legally owned fully automatic weapons and both of those were by off-duty cops using department issued guns.  Any other crime committed using full auto guns have been done with guns either obtained illegally or modified illegally.  It is possible to legally buy a full auto gun if you want to wait 6 months for the BATF to check you out and you have $6000 to spare.

Your position sounds awfully similar to those of gun control groups who use smokescreens to disguise their true intent of the total disarming of the American public and your stated policies sound very much the same.  I was excited to see your website until I read this part.  

Do not claim to be a pro-gun rights organization as long as you have such stipulations on your gun control page.