Posted on 07/24/2004 5:12:31 AM PDT by Pharmboy
It would be nice to see this law go off in the sunset; terrorism at home might make some congresscritters a bit shy about the continuing disarmament of law-abiding citizens.
Tick-tock, bang PING!
If Bush signs it, he'll end up a one-termer like his father, and I shudder to think of the damage that a Kerry victory will do to the Republic.
Don't you even read. It's dead. This a NYT hand wringing article to get knee jerk lunkheads like you all in a tizzy, with your knee jerk one liners.
You're prolly right though, but we should never underestimate the power of indignant liberals when they marshall their forces for a holy war. I hope this will slide because the timing of the dummocrat convention would make it tough for them to get their act together. And, the media can't scream about Bush doing it since the congress let it die.
Here is a fine example of the BIG LIE perpetuated by the anti-gunners. There is no federal BAN on OWNING "assault weapons" as defined in this law, it just bans the importation of a certain semi-automatic weapons. In most states it is perfectly legal to own such firearms.
I never hear anyone stressing this fact.
Yeah, I know, but one would think that a person who has been registered on FR for 4 years(mvpel) would see a NYT hand wringing divide the base story and not make a knee jerk reply.
This one, to the best of my knowledge, bans the sale, importation, and manufacture of particular models and configurations of semi-automatic rifles, which have certain visible (but not functional) characteristics. It also limited the capacity of magazines to 10.
Maybe somebody else can correct me if I've messed it up.
That's a point that these articles never cover; they never tell you what the law actually does.
This didn't read like a "divide the base" story to me. It was more a "alert the fringe left to run around like their hair is on fire" story, IMO.
Have you ever seen the "gun lobby" without the adjective "powerful" on the front? Is it NYT editorial policy to refer to the "powerful environmentalist lobby" or the "powerful feminist lobby"? And when did it go from "NRA" to "powerful gun lobby"? Some focus group or other must've concluded that people associated the NRA with ordinary people, rather than a shadowy corporate entity.
The way these guys hone their misuse of language is terrifying.
So why were you the one running around with your hair on fire? j/k :)
I agree but one poster on this thread took it as a divide the base story, IMO, and gave the usual answer.
Most excellent observation. They don't want you to know what they're squealing about, or else the average reader would think they're crazy.
Just another stupid waste of a law pushed and passed by...LAWYERS! Now if nobody minds...I'll go click a few rounds off with my Ruger rancher 223. You know, the one with the Garand action and all?
...or the [powerful] teacher's lobby or union lobby. No--only the Times' enemies are powerful. Great observation.
Proof that Congress is most useful when they are on vacation. :-D
Five more days. Could it be that the congresscritters opened a dictionary and learned the word "infringe?" Nah.
5.56mm
No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
Looking forward to lower prices for high capacity magazines!
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.