Re: OT: If Kerry is elected...

From: Rolavine (rolavine_at_aol.com)
Date: 10/20/04 

Date: 20 Oct 2004 20:03:07 GMT

>From: Rich Grise rich@example.net

>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:49:33 +0000, Rolavine wrote:
>
>>>From: Jim Yanik jyanik@abuse.gov.
>>
>>>How could anyone vote for someone who opposes a basic part of the
>>>Constitution?(the 2nd Amendment)
>>
>> Because your Blessed Saint Bush of the Perpetual Incompetents is against
>the
>> rest of the document!
>>
>> Assault Weapons are not all guns!
>
>Don't be a fool. There is no such thing as an "assault weapon." It's a
>made-up term, used to scare the roobs into voting for a ban on cool-
>looking black rifles with pistol grips and wire butts and stuff.
>
OK, what terms weren't made up at one time or another? The term was coined
prior to 1994 when the bill that was not renewed went into effect. The list of
weapons specifically banned was:

Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
Colt AR-15;
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
Steyr AUG;
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and
Striker 12.
And any copy of the them.

I'm no gun expert but it seems we are talking about a fairly particular thing
here. I will admitt the bill had some dumb stuff in it, but it could have been
changed rather than thrown out! Like banning rifles, shotguns and pistols with
any more than one feature from a list, Though I laughed when I saw that having
a Grenade Launcher would not have banned a weapon if that was the only feature
from a list, lol.

>> I'm standing with the cops on this one, ban
>> them! the 2nd amendment has not expanded to allow citizens to have their
>own
>> WMD either.
>
>Some serious education needs to be done in this country.
>
>The Constitution does not "allow" anything to the people. It spells out
>what the government is allowed to do, or was intended to.
>
>The Constitution does not "grant" rights. They are granted to you by the
>act of being born alive.

Thanks for that correction, I presumed most of my readers would have met that
criteria, silly me! They do call this the bill of rights don't they, yes I
suppose that was a made up term too.

>The Constitution attempts to highlight the most
>"important" ones, explicitly prohibiting the government from abridging
>your natural human rights, which are the right to life, liberty, and
>the pursuit of happiness.
>
>Not free medical care at somebody else's expense either, BTW.
>
OK, thats a big issue, but you know we are being charged for others free care
now, that is one of the reasons prices are so high. While a lot of savings
could be had from a policy of letting them die in the streets and using their
bodies for dog food I think even the Libertarians wouldn't touch that one.

>The whole rest of this is pretty much irrelevant. Kerry seems to be the
>only viable alternative to Bush - at least he's probably not a lunatic
>on some unholy crusade.
>
Yes, but I think I was hinting that Bush is crazy an on a crusade. Hell, he
even used that word Crusade once didn't he?

Rocky

Quantcast