From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 11:54:56 MDT
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 - 12:05:44 MDT