Posted on 10/27/2005 10:22:39 PM PDT by neverdem
It's hard to imagine that The New York Times editorial page could misconstrue an issue involving guns, seeing as how the writers of the troubled Gray Lady's editorials are so open-minded about the Second Amendment. (That, dear readers, would be sarcasm.)
An offering last week about legislation before the U.S. House that would protect gun manufacturers from nuisance lawsuits posited: "This extraordinary shield, written to the diktat of the National Rifle Association, is so sweeping that it would have barred the D.C. sniper settlement and other valid negligence claims."
Hmm. Sounds like an editorial written to the diktat of the Brady Center for the Prevention of Gun Violence, so sweeping are its flabbergasted expressions of outrage.
I confess I didn't bother to read what The Times had to say editorially after the House passed HR 800 last Thursday. A person can take only so much hyperbole in one week.
On any other issue in the world, a 283-144 vote would be considered charmingly, refreshingly bipartisan. For 59 Democrats to join 223 Republicans (and one independent) in putting a lid on lawsuits that were geared toward bankrupting a legal business in this country means there is merit in the argument and in the way that the legislation is written.
But don't expect opponents of the act to see it that way. They will fabricate a scenario about how cowed those Democrats were by the big bad gun lobby. Every last man and woman of them is facing a difficult re-election battle next fall, they will argue, and the lawmakers can't afford to alienate gun rights advocates when it comes to polling time.
Whatever. The fact stands that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed by the Senate in July by a 65-31 vote, now goes to President...
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
President Bush signed it the day before yesterday.
President Bush signed it the day before yesterday.
Sorry. I just can't hear it often enough...
Whatever faults this administration may have, from a second ammendment perspective W has been the best president in over 100 years.
My recently obtained Ruger .357 Magnum says it all. On it is stamped, from the factory, "BUILT IN THE 200th YEAR OF AMERICAN FREEDOM."
I try to stay informed as much as possible, but I am afraid I am woefully ignorant on the gun issue. So I have to ask, are you sure this is true? Do you think that, for example, Reagan would have signed an "assault weapons" ban?
Where did you find that "liberty" .357? I've got one and am looking for a second but can't find one anywhere.AWB
I found mine at a recent gun show. Just stumbled across it. Keep any eye on the gun shows, several list on the internet today.
Oops, I stand corrected. Just checked and it does say "Liberty," not Freedom. Still, what a statement to have on a Revolver.
I have a Ruger Mark I, that has "Made in the 200th Year of American Liberty," stamped on it.
I believe Ruger marked all the guns in 1976 with this saying, and removed the warning from the side of the barrel.AWB
I think you are correct.
From what I have read, Ruger did mark every gun they made in 1976 with that statement. Mine is a blued Security Six with six inch barrel, but it isn't on the barrel, it's on the left side of the frame, slightly above and behind the trigger. A search of the serial number of mine said it was made in 1977, though.
Another search I did tonight said Rugers with that "Liberty" mark are usually worth about $75 more than comparable models without it.
He DID sign one. The '86 FOPA enacted the machinegun ban.
What was banned in '94 was cosmetic features.
What was banned in '86 was actual functionality.
I just love all the indignation the left musters for the "Big,Bad Gun Lobby" while all the time the NRA and it's lobbying efforts are tiny compared to the trial lawyers lobby and the havoc they inflict upon the population.
Okay, interesting, but I thought machine guns had been banned (or mostly so) since the '30s. And I understand about the '94 ban basically covering guns that look scary. I'm just not so sure Bush is really that great on this issue. Better than average sure, but if he really is the best in the last 100 years then that's actually kind of depressing.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
Bush has been no friend of the 2nd Amendment.
Thank your congresscritters for the expiration of the AWB. It never made it to Dubya's Desk. And since we know he don't like the "Veto" it would have passed.
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.