WHY IS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (OR SOME IN IT) WORRIED ABOUT SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES?

Vanity | 12 April 2003 | Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Just an idea.

[Support Free Republic]

Put a smile on your face, donate to FR today!

(Thanks Chance33_98 for the ad)

[Teetop]

Gun control=people conrtol....

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Gun control=people control....

Believe you're right. Headed more and more that way. If some foreign power misuses even the smallest weapon, they're obliterated. However, criminals here seem to have pretty much free reign. If they're caught, tried and imprisoned, many are let out to do it all over again. I simply don't get it.

[Cultural Jihad]

Ho hum. Wake me up when you can convince everyone else that the U.S. government is run by a foreign occupying power, rather than by, for, and of Americans.

[agitator]

The essential question Americans have to ask involves the concept of principal and agent. We the People are the principals. Our employees; those who work for us in government, are the agents. An agent cannot have any more authority than the principal had to delegate to him in the first place. If I, as an individual fellow citizen and principal, cannot force you to grovel before me for permission to exercise the unalienable right of self-defense, exactly how is it that our employees can claim a power that we, as principals, never had to delegate them in the first place? Think about it. It's really a simple concept :)

By the way, do not be confused by the usual sophistry of lawyers shaking chicken bones over their heads and reciting the chant "Compelling State Interest!" - legal witch doctors are still witch doctors.

[Steve Eisenberg]

As MeneMeneTekelUpharsin undoubtedly knows, once a gun control measure is in place, it is very hard to repeal. And repealing the existing "assault weapons" ban is what is being proposed. If the Bush administration lets it be pegged as turning back the clock on gun control, you are just handing the Dems a BIG issue. Then when they get in, it will just go back to the way it is now, at best.

People won't like this, but here is what I think. By running increasingly big deficits, the GOP has already handed the Dems a big issue on a silver platter. Add on what MeneMeneTekelUpharsin proposes, and you are looking at tremendous Democratic gains in congress and President Hillary Clinton come January 2008.

[Mister Baredog]

WHY IS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (OR SOME IN IT) WORRIED ABOUT SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES?

Because Michael Moore says guns are bad, Rosy told him.

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

lawyers shaking chicken bones

You said it. Lawyers have stepped in and basically have assisted in the looting of our freedoms. I can't state my opinions about the crooked lawyers I've known here in public.

[Cultural Jihad]

... ABOUT SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES?

Semiautomatic rifles? Since you failed to support the 2nd Amendment right to own and carry C4 plastic explosives in our sneakers on planes, you must be one of those goobermint persons. ;)

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

First of all, if you think we're going to get Democrat votes we haven't already been able to convert, you're deluding yourself. It doesn't matter what you stand for, they're NOT going to vote Republican. Accept it. If you stand up for what is right, some more people with a bit of decency and common sense WILL vote Republican.

Check out this quote from the Yahoo Finance message boards (what it was doing there I don't know).

As for the Iraqis here is the cost of Liberation: 75,000 Iraqi troops KILLED, YES KILLED. They are humans too. Unfortunately, 99% were forced into fighting without surrendering. They had absolutely no weapons that match US technology (Get back to this subject later in the post) 10,000 Iraqi soldiers wounded and or injured. All Iraqi army weapons destroyed.

Especially not the comment They had absolutely no weapons that match US technology. And, that is a LIBERAL posting that diatribe. They KNOW the rifles/handguns we have are no match for the authorities. They KNOW it. So, why do they want them? The Republican party and gun owners must begin their own "Psy-ops" program to educate the public to the value and proper use of rifles and handguns and advocate severe punishment for misuse thereof. Back to you.

[Rome2000]

Why are we a threat with semiautomatic rifles of ANY configuration against the U.S. government?

It only takes a derringer to assasinate a politician, ask Abe Lincoln..

Thats really the bottom line, the ones that want to control us must first disarm us, plain and simple.

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Good point and it reinforces the argument about the real reason. It has nothing to do with OUR welfare, does it?

[yooper]

You're missing a very important point here. Many of these leftist idiots, being idiots, don't know the difference between a semi-auto and a full. How many times have you heard some bonehead reporter make reference to a "machine gun", when the weapon in question is a semi-auto.

It's not that they have a problem with machine guns vs. semi-autos; it's that they have a problem with GUNS. They draw no distinction between one to the other.

[oyez]

The 2nd Amendment -- the real "Power to the people".

[Teacher317]

Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban ^

Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban ^

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Thanks for adding the links. That is why I wrote and posted what I did. The story inspired my response. Thanks again.

[Rome2000]

The same sons of bitches that disarm us vote against the death penalty for criminals that murder us, then vote to abort babies at will.

Sick evil corrupt leftist bastards all.

[NewRomeTacitus]

The Demos keep harping on disarming us out of force of habit. When the light of reality is shined on these schemes they slink off to ambush us down the road. Right now they’re lining up to push a ban on .50 caliber arms that semantically bans most shotguns.
Please write your representatives if you want to make this slope less slippery.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I simply don't understand the continuing push to outlaw SEMIAUTOMATIC "assault" rifles which are close to becoming usless in a war against a well-equipped military force with air power at it's disposal.

I agree, going up against the U.S military would be scary.

But could anyone imagine an army of 23 million armed citizens, that look just like those that are regular military and many thousands who are former.

Taking on the U.S. people, would be many times more difficult if not almost impossible for any army. If the regular folks were really mad, Iraq would seem manageable or a small problem in comparison. IMHO that is....