Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Right to Bear Arms
U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs ^ | 20 Feb 2004

Posted on 03/13/2004 11:06:01 AM PST by TERMINATTOR

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last
Your tax dollars at work!
1 posted on 03/13/2004 11:06:02 AM PST by TERMINATTOR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
bump
2 posted on 03/13/2004 11:20:15 AM PST by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
Bookmarked for posterity.
3 posted on 03/13/2004 11:35:55 AM PST by newgeezer (fundamentalist, regarding the Constitution AND the Holy Bible, i.e. words mean things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
Quite the contrary, The Supreme Court has covered this issue many times. The wording in the Constitution is simple
and unambiguous. The "people" in the Second Amendment are the same "people" in the First Amendment. The Supreme Court
has ruled that this refers to individuals (an individual right).
4 posted on 03/13/2004 11:54:23 AM PST by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
From the article: "It is a measure of just how strong the gun lobby is in the United States that they managed to influence a Congress that saw public opinion polls strongly supporting stringent gun control measures."

I can imagine a lot of ways to say this that would be more fair to gun owners.

Four million members of the NRA versus a few tens of thousands of "Million Moms". The debate dies down when the Demoncrats become fearful of using gun control as a rallying cry.

5 posted on 03/13/2004 11:56:37 AM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
"The Senate quickly passed a bill that would have tightened up the procedures for purchasing a gun, as well as a ban on certain types of ammunition, but it ran into a roadblock in the House where anti-control groups lobbied successfully to defeat the measure. It is a measure of just how strong the gun lobby is in the United States that they managed to influence a Congress that saw public opinion polls strongly supporting stringent gun control measures."

Colin Powell is sad, very sad.

Molon Labe!

6 posted on 03/13/2004 11:57:08 AM PST by TERMINATTOR (Sic semper tyrannis! (Thus always to tyrants!) -John Wilkes Booth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
The Second Amendment was never intended to augment or diminish this traditional right, and advocates of gun control have never argued that they want to deny individuals the ability to protect themselves against criminals.

Advocates of gun control refuse to so much as acknowledge the idea that one might even need to use a firearm in one's own self-defense. "That's what the police are for." I've seen people on DU argue with a straight face that the defensive use of a gun never happens.

Advocates of gun control will not come right out and say that they wish to deny individuals the right to effective self-defense. That would be a losing position. The effect of their policies, however, would be exactly that. What is a 75 year old going to do when a group of thugs kicks in his front door? Ward them off with a baseball bat?

Political considerations aside, I did think this was a well-written piece.

7 posted on 03/13/2004 11:59:22 AM PST by Objective Reality
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR; Beelzebubba; coloradan; Noumenon; Mulder
In the English colonies, as recent scholarship has shown, private gun ownership was also relatively limited.

This tells you all you need to know about this state department bias against our RKBA. They're obviously referring to the totally debunked and disgraced work by Michael Belisles (SP).

<p

8 posted on 03/13/2004 12:14:53 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
BTTT
9 posted on 03/13/2004 12:17:32 PM PST by Fiddlstix (This Space Available for Rent or Lease by the Day, Week, or Month. Reasonable Rates. Inquire within.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
Yep. Out tax dollars at work AGAINST US!



Just read a few pages from this website...

This department's interpretation of what is and what is not a "right" is damned scary.

This is the LEAD sentence in a section under Property Rights"



"Property rights seem to many people an archaic notion, a relic of a time long gone when the status of an individual would be determined by the property he owned"

Sounds EXACTLY how they began to interpreted the 2nd.


It seems to boil down to "If the government was allowed to ban, deny a CERTAIN group'd right to own weapons in the past, then it is o.k. for the" gubmint" to do so now.

It COMPLETELY ignores the 14th Amend and the Court's ruling of Equal Protection" clause, guaranteeing the rights of ALL citizens.



10 posted on 03/13/2004 12:18:03 PM PST by RedMonqey (Its is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eaker
Gun Ping.

Come and take 'em.. and bring a lunch.

Bring a lot of stuff actually...

11 posted on 03/13/2004 12:21:30 PM PST by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
You beat me to the punch by a few seconds in quoting that passage!

There's a lot of NWO anti-freedom drivel left to note though. There misinterpretation of US v Miller stands out.

"The Court unanimously upheld the federal law, as well as congressional power to regulate firearms, and insisted that the Second Amendment had to be read in the context of its original intent, namely staffing the militia."

This is the gun grabbers position - that the Second Amendment protects the national guard's RKBA.

12 posted on 03/13/2004 12:23:15 PM PST by TERMINATTOR (Sic semper tyrannis! (Thus always to tyrants!) -John Wilkes Booth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The, Second, Amendment, contains only, a single, comma.

--Boris

13 posted on 03/13/2004 12:25:31 PM PST by boris (The deadliest Weapon of Mass Destruction in History is a Leftist With a Word Processor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
"In the English colonies, as recent scholarship has shown, private gun ownership was also relatively limited."


So was PRIVATE PROPERTY!

So would the right to own property be a "collective right" and allow ONLY the "gubmint" to keep and maintain such?
(heavy sarcasm)
14 posted on 03/13/2004 12:26:19 PM PST by RedMonqey (Its is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The right to self defense does not descend from government, and cannot be rescinded by them. Any attempt to do so is illegal, and traitorous.
And futile.

15 posted on 03/13/2004 12:32:53 PM PST by GhostofWCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
Their true position is illustrated with the hunter cartoon. When I saw it, I knew what the stance would be.
16 posted on 03/13/2004 12:33:58 PM PST by GhostofWCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
bump
17 posted on 03/13/2004 12:35:12 PM PST by TC Rider (The United States Constitution 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
Their scholary works refered to was by one Besileis or some such moniker who has been discredited and fired from his cushy professorship. On all counts he is reconized as a proven liar and fabricator from whole cloth of non-exsistant records.
18 posted on 03/13/2004 12:41:46 PM PST by Ursus arctos horribilis ("It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" Emiliano Zapata 1879-1919)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
Right you are! Regardless of comma's, tyrants will continue to disregard the Constitution as long as we let them.

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson; The "Tree of Liberty" letter

19 posted on 03/13/2004 12:43:11 PM PST by TERMINATTOR (Sic semper tyrannis! (Thus always to tyrants!) -John Wilkes Booth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

20 posted on 03/13/2004 12:53:00 PM PST by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
"At some time, perhaps in the not-too-distant future, the Court will be faced with a direct challenge to gun control laws based on the Second Amendment, and its voice will play an important, perhaps a decisive, part in shaping the debate over the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Sure, like if the rotten black-robed tyrants decide that the 2nd doesn't mean what it says, that we're all going to line up like sheep to turn 'em in. Fools.

21 posted on 03/13/2004 12:57:54 PM PST by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
Over the years, I have seen a number of comments that the Second Amendment, as originally written, contained only one comma. I have not been able to verify this however; although I have tried.

If you can point me toward a source, any source, I would appreciate it. Give me someplace to start and I'll go from there.

Thanks.
22 posted on 03/13/2004 12:58:25 PM PST by qvack (Reserved for office use only.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: qvack
One Comma or Three? (SAF)
23 posted on 03/13/2004 1:05:28 PM PST by TERMINATTOR (Sic semper tyrannis! (Thus always to tyrants!) -John Wilkes Booth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
I am at work and so only briefly read the text. I will read it and print it out later. But, from what I can gather, you seem to think that a person has some right to a firearm; that it is written down somewhere.
Let me correct your thinking on this. I went to the ACLU web site where they staunchly defend every American's right to abortion and sodomy as is listed clearly in the Constitution. Nowhere did they indicate the Second Amendment exists. I think it is the vast right wing conspiracy that has invented this mythical right.
I think my tag line says it all.
24 posted on 03/13/2004 1:08:08 PM PST by IrishCatholic (Liberals are proof that public education has failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR; Joe Brower; Travis McGee; archy; Eaker; 45Auto; Shooter 2.5; *bang_list
bump, ping, bookmark
25 posted on 03/13/2004 1:11:37 PM PST by King Prout (MECCA ET MEDINA DELINDA SUNT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
This civil servant's hack piece quotes from Blackstone, and Blackstone gives the right it's due regard, but the nanny statist civil servant goes on to draw some an utterly idiotic inference from it, that is idiotic because it is completely at odds with Blackstone, and utterly so because it has no founding at all in what Blackstone wrote.
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765):
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject . . . is that of having arms for their defence suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law .;. It is indeed, a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
This passage, however, points to historical facts often overlooked in the debate, namely, that the ownership of guns was strictly regulated in England. Only the nobility and the gentry could own arms; the ordinary citizen had no right to bear arms.
"The ordinary citizen had no right to bear arms" -- ridiculous. Unfounded, a lie.

There are others, the piece is rife with such claptrap.

26 posted on 03/13/2004 1:11:54 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
good site. thanks for the link
27 posted on 03/13/2004 1:27:08 PM PST by King Prout (MECCA ET MEDINA DELINDA SUNT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic
"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." --Luke 22:36

What next, sword control?

28 posted on 03/13/2004 1:31:24 PM PST by TERMINATTOR (Sic semper tyrannis! (Thus always to tyrants!) -John Wilkes Booth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GhostofWCooper
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I wonder why this doesn't mean two separate and distinct ideas. First, there is a recognition that the security of a free State must rely on a militia, but it must be a well regulated militia. A poorly regulated militia would be a dangerous thing, wouldn't it? That being said, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. On the one hand the State is asserting the need for a well regulated militia, and at the same time, acknowledging the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

29 posted on 03/13/2004 1:33:35 PM PST by Enterprise ("Do you know who I am?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
Bingo!

Thanks.
30 posted on 03/13/2004 1:33:47 PM PST by qvack (Do not bend, pin, fold or otherwise mutilate this post.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
Thanks for the ping, fumbleduck!!
31 posted on 03/13/2004 1:41:39 PM PST by Eaker ("Do I feel your pain?? Hell, I caused your pain!!!!" - Tom Eaker, 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
In the English colonies, as recent scholarship has shown, private gun ownership was also relatively limited.

Refers to Michael Bellesile's book, which cost him his job for its indefensible lack of scholarship. Fraud, really.

32 posted on 03/13/2004 1:46:13 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GhostofWCooper

"The Second Ammendment ain't about fucking duck hunting." -- Raider, State President, Minnesota VNVMC
33 posted on 03/13/2004 1:52:36 PM PST by TERMINATTOR (Sic semper tyrannis! (Thus always to tyrants!) -John Wilkes Booth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR; All
40 acres = a farm
40 acres + a gun = a compound
40 acres + a bible + a gun = a cult compound
40 acres + a copy of the federalist papers + a gun = a right-wing militia compound
40 acres + a copy of the federalist and anti-federalist papers + a gun = a right-wing militia terrorist compound

301 Handgun Total Murders 1999
DC 100% Gun Banned over 27 years
340,000 Population
--V--
300 Handgun Total Murders 1999
17 Legal Carry States COMBINED
23,000,000 Population

SOURCE: 1999 Clinton/Reno/Freeh
FBI-DOJ Uniform Crime Report

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

Click here to read the report BY THE SENATE that finds an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."


±

"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty."
Toward FREEDOM

34 posted on 03/13/2004 1:56:56 PM PST by Neil E. Wright (An oath is FOREVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman
The "people" in the Second Amendment are the same "people" in the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that this refers to individuals (an individual right).

Something I have never seen posited is that, even if the argument above were somehow incorrect, it does not FORBID an individual right. In that case, a parallel case could be made for the existence of an individual right under the 'unenumerated rights' clause.

If that clause can give enough room to murder babies, it (in absense of a specific Second Amendment protection) should cover me in defending myself.

It should, if it covers sodomy in the privacy of the bedroom, also cover weapons in the privacy of the gun safe in my bedroom.

S.A . arguments naturally take first prioriity, but a second line of defense (or second attack wave) never hurts.
35 posted on 03/13/2004 2:04:28 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (The world needs more horses, and fewer Jackasses!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: qvack
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a385f24cc68da.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39a02fb34988.htm
36 posted on 03/13/2004 2:12:27 PM PST by boris (The deadliest Weapon of Mass Destruction in History is a Leftist With a Word Processor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
I always read it...and I was taught this way in 8th grade CALIFORNIA STATE REQUIRED test on the Consitution...that BECAUSE the state required a 'well regulated militia', THE PEOPLE had the 'right to bear arms' to KEEP the state & it's militia in line.

IOW, it was an idividual right to protect 'the people' FROM the state & it's 'militia'.

How times have changed in 45 or so years
37 posted on 03/13/2004 2:20:28 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (The world needs more horses, and fewer Jackasses!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: boris
Thanks as well.

Always knew the good people here would point me to what I could not find for myself - even though I looked, honest!
38 posted on 03/13/2004 2:21:31 PM PST by qvack (Do not bend, pin, fold, spindle or otherwise mutilate the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
The irony of it is, the State Department weenies probably think they're giving gun owners a fair shake with that biased product.

They should also have referenced Kopel et. al., Supreme Court Gun Cases, Phoenix, AZ, Bloomfield Press, 2004. It covers 92 cases, almost all of which support the individual right to keep and bear arms.

39 posted on 03/13/2004 2:22:05 PM PST by JoeFromSidney (My book's due out soon. Read excerpts at http://www.thejusticecooperative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
That passage was what grabbed my eye, also. Without firearms, life on the frontier would have been impossible. But this shows, once again, how useful a lie can be to those who do not have conscience. Belisles is a scoundrel, who set out to mislead. It is difficult to imagine any motive for his work that would be consistent with any legitimate American purpose.

The article also is very selective--in a biased sense--in some of its other citations. For a better perspective on what the Founding Fathers intended: The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms.

William Flax

40 posted on 03/13/2004 2:35:51 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch
I agree, of course. It just seems it would have saved a lot of debate had it been worded something like this:

1. A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

2. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

41 posted on 03/13/2004 3:03:52 PM PST by Enterprise ("Do you know who I am?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
Enterprise said: "It just seems it would have saved a lot of debate had it been worded something like this: "

The actual construction has a meaning which is only a shade different from that. Even using your construction, some would claim that the fact that two things are listed means that they are not connected and therefor "arms" only includes .22 rifles with low-velocity rounds chambered manually one at a time by hand. The standing army will take care of the Militia needs.

42 posted on 03/13/2004 3:23:36 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
Here's one of my favorites which analyses the sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

The Unabridged Second Amendment

It makes the point that nobody would think that this sentence protects only the right of voters to keep and read books.

43 posted on 03/13/2004 3:30:18 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise; qvack; boris; William Tell
The comma debate is not as frivolous as it might at first appear. The (correct) one comma version helps to seperate the two. Oh, the tyranny of run-on sentences! If only our founding fathers had used a period, instead of a comma.

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." -- Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

44 posted on 03/13/2004 4:13:25 PM PST by TERMINATTOR (Sic semper tyrannis! (Thus always to tyrants!) -John Wilkes Booth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
I agree. I think that one tends to view the 2nd Amendment in accordance with ones view of the Government.

1. The People are subordinate to the Government.

2. The Government is subordinate to the people.

Guess which view the anti-second amendment group holds?

That being said, I think that in time, we will witness the "Ron Silver" affect. During the first inauguration of Clinton, some military jets flew overhead and this peeved Silver for a moment. Then suddenly he realized "Hey, those are our jets now." When the left has been out of power long enough, they will start saying "Hey, that's OUR 2nd Amendment and OUR right to bear arms too!"

45 posted on 03/13/2004 4:39:18 PM PST by Enterprise ("Do you know who I am?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
LOL!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Looking at this from a view of making sense of what "shall not be infringed" means, let us ask the question then - WHAT shall not be infringed? Does it mean that:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed?

Or did the framers intend that:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" shall not be infringed? Now clearly, the framers intended that something here not be infringed! Again, it depends upon ones view, which of these one holds as truth.

1. The People are subordinate to the Government.

2. The Government is subordinate to the People.

46 posted on 03/13/2004 4:55:51 PM PST by Enterprise ("Do you know who I am?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
...pitting advocates of gun control against those who see gun ownership as a constitutionally protected right that is beyond legislative control.

As we see the assault on the First amendment with McCain-Finegold, so shall we see the assault on the Second amendment continue. If the federal government can't trust the people with arms, then the people can't trust the government with laws. Because tyranny is only one disarmament away.

5.56mm

47 posted on 03/13/2004 5:12:16 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
This tells you all you need to know about this state department bias against our RKBA

No surprise there. Most governments throughout history have had a real problem with the peasants having weapons.

48 posted on 03/13/2004 5:55:43 PM PST by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

In this version, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is a complete statement, and its meaning is clear. The other part "A well-regulated Militia being necesary to the security of a free State" is an incomplete sentence, and is not made clearer by the rest of it. It is the first part that is unclear, not the second part. But the anti-gun people will never listen anyway.

49 posted on 03/13/2004 5:56:48 PM PST by Enterprise ("Do you know who I am?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
"A real hunter, they argue, uses a rifle or a shotgun, not a semi-automatic machine gun."

Never seen a "semi-automatic machine gun" before.

Boy, what will they think of next?

BigBlockk

Later.....
50 posted on 03/13/2004 6:23:44 PM PST by BigBlockk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson