The guy may not like Bush, but he gets it! He understands that the purpose of the Second is to buttress all the other Amendments against any potential domestic tyrrany.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Posted on 05/10/2002 6:16:52 PM PDT by alaskanfan
But note the "comrades" ...
I always thought it was the folks in north Idaho that were "under the gun."
I would imagine he'd have at a minimum a collection of hunting rifles and a shotgun or two...
Do you suppose G.W. has shot a few squirrels in his day?
The guy may not like Bush, but he gets it! He understands that the purpose of the Second is to buttress all the other Amendments against any potential domestic tyrrany.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Do you think it will be any different in 2004?
It is nice to see a liberal that "gets it."
Every liberal should be required to post then following statement in his/her front lawn:
I BELIEVE IN GUN CONTROL, THERE ARE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE.
This would quickly eliminate any opposition to gun control.
The "Clinton era" must have been short-lived then, because the absurd arsenic standard was passed via executive order in the eleventh hour of Clinton's shameful occupation of the White House. Prior to his final days in office, it didn't register as much of an issue. One might even suspect he passed said regulation as much to embarrass his successor as to protect anyone from a nonexistent threat. But Bill Clinton would never do such a thing, would he?
The neighbors bemoaned the fact that their enjoyment of their secluded property this weekend had been destroyed by this fellow apparently seeing how fast he could empty out a 30-round magazine from a semi-auto rifle -- over and over again all day. Now these neighbors aren't anti-gun (I checked on that before making an offer on the property), but they are understandably annoyed when a neighbor's gun hobby interferes with their quieter hobbies (the husband is learning to play an antique pump organ, for example).
I would very much have liked to reply to their e-mail by saying that I have a semi-auto rifle too, but that being a considerate person, I always use a silencer when shooting in a residential area. The gun banners don't want me to be able to do that, because fewer people will have grudges against guns and "gun nuts" that way.
How many suburbanites have plenty of room in their backyards to practice target shooting with handguns, but wouldn't dream of doing so because the noise alone would upset the neighbors? Lots, and I'll bet there are even more who've thought of buying a gun and learning how to use it, but because they don't live near a shooting range, or wouldn't have time to get to one very often, they just skip the gun because they figure they can't practice with it at home.
The silencer ban may originally have been aimed at criminals, but today, when the materials and instructions for making silencers are readily available (materials for a few bucks at the hardware store, instructions free on the Internet), obviously no criminal who's planning on going out and shooting someone will have any trouble equipping himself with a serviceable makeshift silencer. Today, the silencer ban is all about discouraging gun use among the general, law abiding public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.