From: Chuck Kuecker (ckuecker@ckent.org)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 13:20:09 MDT
I have been staying out of this one so far, but...
People like DiFi won't be comfortable in the US until they have total
control - and having a freely armed populace is a very uncontrolled thing.
There are numerous quotes from "liberals" that indicate that they desire
the incremental regulation of firearms to continue until no one has one
without a direct grant from the government.
Chuck Kuecker
At 13:54 05/19/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 5/19/2003 12:29:37 PM Central Standard Time,
>mlorrey@yahoo.com writes: But what would be the new criteria? The criteria
>that Feinstein is using is exclusively an aesthetic judgement that a firearm
>'looks military'.
>
>Mike,
> You seem to know much more about gun law than I do so let me ask a
>question of you.
> I keep hearing about a division between "military" weapons" and
> "sport
>weapons." Some seem to try to convince us that it is all right to have sport
>weapons but not military weapons. You have just quoted Senator Feinstein
>making that distinction.
> That distinction and the conclusion that we should be permitted
> sports
>weapons and denied military weapons to be the height of silliness and perhaps
>ignorance.
> As I understand our Constitution, our right to own weapons is
> based at
>least in part on our need to form a militia. Is Senator Feinstein suggesting
>that if we are called, with our weapon, to serve in our local militia that we
>should show up with our trusty 22 caliber target rifle to face hostile troops
>armed with the latest weapons that military science can offer. Is she being
>silly? If I have to serve I want to own the best military weapon and
>ammunition my wallet can afford.
> Mike, have I got that right or am I missing something.
>Ron h
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 19 2003 - 13:32:15 MDT