1 posted on
05/18/2006 12:43:54 PM PDT by
Daralundy
To: fanfan; GMMAC; Clive
Gun Registry Ping!
Don't know if you want to bother with a blog post. But I think it throws a little interesting light on the gun registry.
2 posted on
05/18/2006 12:45:31 PM PDT by
Daralundy
To: Daralundy
Number 11 is the receiver
3 posted on
05/18/2006 12:56:52 PM PDT by
Yo-Yo
(USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
To: Daralundy
These laws are very confusing.
A bunch of Garands and parts won't wind up in the hands of U.S. collectors and shooters. That's the bottom line.
They took 1,000 Garands off of the streets. Probably cost them $1,000,000 per rifle to do it.
6 posted on
05/18/2006 1:19:18 PM PDT by
Supernatural
(Its not dark yet, but its getting there.)
To: Daralundy
Still, 23,000 rifles is pretty impressive. Well, what the Coalition actually said was 23,000 rifles and components: Yes, 23,000 fewer rifles (or rifle parts) will have a signifcant
impact in a country that has over 7,000,000 rifles and shotguns...
Thanks for keeping our streets safe.
Talk about shiet for brains.......
7 posted on
05/18/2006 1:30:44 PM PDT by
CaptainCanada
("Macht doch Eiern Dreck aleene!" (Take care of your own mess!).)
To: Daralundy
why garands? if the caNADians had WWII surplus, wouldn't they have been enfields?
10 posted on
05/19/2006 6:04:36 AM PDT by
absolootezer0
("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
To: Daralundy
LOL! Iirc, an awful lot of short barrelled Webleys and the like showed up on gun show tables in the Northern US when the Canadians passed their bit defining the length of pistol barrels, too. All the registry did was make a lot of firearms go 'underground'.
The same would happen here if mandatory registration were to be decreed.
12 posted on
05/22/2006 4:22:02 AM PDT by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson