Idiot is probably too nice of word.

From this article: http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,563436,00.html

I will quote certain portions.

"Gun manufacturers have found ways to skirt the law and continue making these deadly products that are attractive to criminals," stated Elizabeth Coolidge, ICHV Board Chair. "The Conyers-McCarthy bill will strengthen the existing ban so that gun makers can't get away with[b] breaking the law[/b]."

"The McCarthy-Conyers bill would keep gun makers from modifying weapons in order to evade the law"


AND FOR A DOOZY:

"For the past decade, the gun industry has successfully circumvented the existing law by designing and marketing assault weapons that incorporate slight modifications in order to evade the ban. The gun industry markets a wide variety of such "post-ban" assault weapons that incorporate features that are the essence of an assault weapon-design characteristics that make it easy for a shooter to simply point, as opposed to carefully aim, a weapon to quickly spray a wide area with a lethal hail of bullets. Today, post-ban versions of AK-47s and AR-15s, guns banned by name in the 1994 law, are flooding the civilian market. A post-ban AR-15 clone, manufactured by the Bushmaster corporation, was used by the Washington, DC-area snipers to kill 10 and injure three in October 2002" [RED] Which is it? [/red]

CRC

I really hate dumba$$ moron liberals.

Ahh, the old simply-point-as-opposed-to-carefully-aim-well-aimed-accurate-as-hell-sniper-rifle.

It all comes down to interpretation of the law.  The ban was circumvented by the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law.  Which one is more important?  Depends on what you're trying to prove.  In the end, the quick answer is derived by what is in ink than what isn't.

... “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.”

So what's wrong with complying with the letter of the law, is that a crime?

Well, for what it's worth ... after having read that, I paid a visit to the ICHV website and fired off an e-mail to them pointing out several reasons why they were wrong.

Yeah, I'm just one guy, and yeah they'll probably just shoot back some *anti* rhetoric, but I can't stop trying.

The day we do that, is the day the antis win.

Thing is, you won't change the mind of an anti-2nd Amendment radical, never happen. It's like a religion to them - they believe in what they are doing as ferevntly any extremist or zealot.

The only thing that will change their mind is violent action against them or a loved one where a firearm could make a difference - and even then they're likely to simply believe that it's OK for [i]them[/i] to have possession, but [i]the common citizenry[/i] isn't to be trusted.  

It's the fencesitters who can be swayed, people who don't have a visceral reaction to the topic of gun ownership. They may not want a gun in their own house, but they aren't against the RKBA. Yet.

Those are the folks who need to be reached, with positive TV and radio messages. They need to be shown the lies - like Broward Sheriff Ken Jenne did last week. They need to be shown that the anti-RKBA crowd will lie, cheat, and deceive in order to sugjugate them and remove their right to self-protection; have reinforced that the police are not there to protect them, that it's a personal responsibility.