Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/23/2003 9:10:25 PM EDT
[url=http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mclaughlin/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1056263517128470.xml]The hunt for candidates who hold guns sacred[/url] John McLaughlin The Star-Ledger (New Jersey) Sunday, June 22, 2003 As is their custom, the guns "r" us guys and gals have sent a questionnaire to legislative candidates to learn where they stand on firearms issues. Leaders of [red]Gun Owners of America, a National Rifle Association affiliate[/red], [ROFL2] will grade the responses, and voters will be alerted as to which side of the Great Gun Divide a given candidate comes down. If you are an ordinary citizen, the odds are you don't have any idea who represents you in the state Legislature, much less how whoever it is feels about gun laws. You think the laws aren't tough enough on violators and too loose on possession, but you aren't prepared to make a federal case out of it and, if you do bother to vote, you'll make your choice for a variety of reasons -- party, ethnic affiliation, a chance meeting with a candidate whose style you like. But if you're a gun owner who takes it seriously enough to join an organized gun group and pay the dues that fund the campaigns of gun sympathizers, the candidates' position on firearms is all that counts. And you will vote. As a service to our readers, I have reviewed the questionnaire circulated among New Jersey candidates. You really ought to know what you're buying into when you cast your vote for somebody who gets an 'A' from the NRA. Here's where the NRA is: No limitation on number of guns you can purchase. Wants a law banning local laws restricting the right to buy, carry or own guns. Favors another law banning legal suits against manufacturers and dealers for failure to secure guns and to deny them to [red]suspicious purchasers.[/red] Wants an end to zones where guns are not permitted -- you know, [red]like those around schools.[/red] Opposes gun registration that can be "tracked by a central registration system administered by government agencies," for fear the names of gun owners will wind up in a federal registry. Wants repeal of bans on semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines -- [red]all the rage with mass murderers.[/red] Is against proposed law that would deny guns to anyone under 21. Wants to retain the [red]loophole that enables people to dodge a background check if they buy their weapon at a gun show[/red]. Opposes requirements that guns be locked when in storage. Favors an end to laws denying guns to people found guilty of "simple misdemeanors" like spanking their children or shouting at spouses. The NRA wants to "Vermontize" the nation. No fees and no registration. Citizens would be free to carry their guns openly or concealed. I don't doubt that some, maybe many, "law-abiding gun owners" are inconvenienced or even hassled as a result of laws now in effect or that the passage of more gun-control legislation would aggravate this. But [red]36,000 Americans die from gunshot wounds every year[/red] -- a major inconvenience to their families. The NRA is willing to live with that. Better a few thousand deaths that might have been avoided than any more government restrictions. Like prohibiting the .50-caliber or [red]"sniper" rifle[/red]. Delivers a bullet that can pierce body armor. [red]Packs too much power for hunting [/red]but it can hit a target a mile away. The City of Los Angeles has banned these big babies despite the mobilization of the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association Policy Institute, which may well be the world's most narrowly focused think tank. Police Chief William Bratton argued [red]these weapons are dangerous and serve no legitimate purpose[/red]. There are no rogue elephants in L.A. But you never know. What if the Fifty Caliber Shooters Policy Institute is right? Suppose you found yourself on Wilshire Boulevard and were threatened by the Incredible Hulk. Bearing down on you. Only a mile away and moving fast. And just suppose you were without your trusty .50-caliber sniper rifle. Then what? What are you supposed to do in a case like that? Call 9-1-1?
View Quote
What a dumbass. [rolleyes] [i]Favors another law banning legal suits against manufacturers and dealers for failure to secure guns and to deny them to [red]suspicious purchasers.[/red][/i] [b]"Suspicious" like... hmmmmm...Black folks? Hispanics? Men with beards? If they pass a NICS check, what else is there???[/b] [i]Wants an end to zones where guns are not permitted -- you know, [red]like those around schools.[/red][/i] [b]Ummmm.... the "Gun-Free School Zone" law was struck down by the Supreme Court EIGHT YEARS ago! What cave is this dolt living in?[/b] [i]Wants repeal of bans on semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines -- [red]all the rage with mass murderers.[/red] [/i] [b]MOST mass murderers don't use guns (some even use simple boxcutters) and [u]less than 3%[/u] of criminals who use guns in crimes use "assault weapons".[/b] [i]Is against proposed law that would deny guns to anyone under 21. Wants to retain the [red]loophole that enables people to dodge a background check if they buy their weapon at a gun show[/red][/i] [b][u]Less than 1%[/u] of guns used in crimes are obtained through gunshows.[/b] [i]But [red]36,000 Americans die from gunshot wounds every year[/red] -- a major inconvenience to their families. The NRA is willing to live with that. Better a few thousand deaths that might have been avoided than any more government restrictions.[/i] [b]WRONG! Less than 30,000 firearm-related deaths per year not 36,000. But if numbers matter - there actually ARE 36,000 deaths each year due to [u]alcohol[/u] - but the 21st Amendment protects alcohol use just as the 2nd protects firearm ownership.[/b] [i]Police Chief William Bratton argued these weapons [red]are dangerous and serve no legitimate purpose[/red]. There are no rogue elephants in L.A. [/i] [b]No elephants, but there are a LOT of rogue politicians and Police chiefs who want a defenseless, dependant, docile herd of sheeple to watch over. That's MUCH more dangerous than an elephant.[/b]
Link Posted: 6/23/2003 9:19:29 PM EDT
a textbook example of a lieberal parrot with diarrhea of the mouth. not one link or ref. to email the bastage.. 2nd amendment displayed below for your convenience! [:)]
Top Top