1994 Gun Ban

[Fish Hawg]

I thought that some might find these sites interesting.
Site 1
site 2

Also I read in my NRA magazine that REPS. John Conyers(D-MI) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) Have interduced H.R. 2038, Legislation that bans millions of more guns. It would also ban every semi auto shotgun on the market today. .....Ross

[SPAZZ]

NEVER WILL I GIVE UP MY WEAPONS.

[HntnFsh]

I made a few comments under the thread,Thank You Sara Brady.Glad to see more people paying attention to whats going on.I hope this gets a lot more publicity and involvement from everybody that owns or wants to own a firearm.Or just cares about not losing our constitutional rights.

[KingFisher85]

I signed up for there updated e-mails (in his first link, AWB site) and I would hope others would to. They giving out good information!

[Elkhunter]

They never quit!!! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

[Xcessiv4c]

Remember what Thomas Jefferson said, "The second amendment will not be needed until they try to take it." Sorry to say I think that Americans like security more than liberty so if they take the second amendment away I think most people will just turn on the TV and take up needle point.
I hope I'm wrong. Besides most people think the 2nd is about hunting and sports shooting. If your one of them read the framers writings about it dont bother me about why I dont need an Uzi to go deer hunting. I actually have had people say that to me.

X

[ 02-27-2004, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: Xcessiv4c ]

[Silver Eagle]

John Kerry just signed the Ban on Automatic Weapons does that say something???????????? If he is elected there goes our guns rights...or we will spent a lot to keep what we have......

[KingFisher85]

Today, the U.S. Senate approved an amendment offered by Sen. Feinstein to the firearms lawsuit preemption bill that would renew the 1994 "Assault Weapons" Ban.

The vote was 52-47. In contrast, Feinstein's 1993 amendment was a more lopsided 56-43.

This certainly represents a defeat for us, but this is only the very early stage of the fight... the real battle, where we have the best chances of stopping the ban, will be in the House. The Senate bill, after being passed, will need to be reconciled with the House version of the bill (which, of course, does not contain an AWB renewal) in conference committee, where it will likely be stripped from the bill. If the bill does make it out of conference committee with the ban intact, it will need to be approved by the full House, and again by the Senate (if there were any changes made to the bill) before making it to the President's desk.

Some particularly disappointing votes that could have made a difference were those of Breaux (D-LA) and Smith (R-OR), as well as the Republican senators from Maine, Collins and Snowe.

Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) did an outstanding job representing gun owners over the past several days, and is to be applauded for his efforts in laying out the case for why the ban should not be extended.

So, let us lick our wounds, regroup, and get back to focusing our efforts on the House. Keep in mind, we never expected to win in the Senate, though it sure would have been nice!

--------------------------------------------------

Just as everyone following this issue was evaluating the aftermath of the Senate's vote to add a renewal of the so-called "assault weapons" ban to a widely supported bill, Senate Republicans dropped a bombshell by killing their own bill, taking the assorted anti-gun amendments such as the AWB renewal and gun show "loophole" measure with it.

S.1805, a bill to protect the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits, was voted down 90-8.

Most observers expected supporters of the bill to send it on to the House, which already overwhelmingly approved a "clean" version of the bill, and attempt to strip off the anti-gun amendments in conference committee, or, if all else failed, kill the bill altogether. Virtually no one expected the NRA to torpedo the bill in the Senate.

While killing the AWB (for now, at least) without having to rely on the House was the safest route, it is unfortunate that the much needed lawsuit protection bill that it was attached to was lost in the process.

News stories on today's events are reporting that the vote "virtually ends any chance for gun legislation to make through Congress this year." In addition, Charles Schumer (D-NY), a strong supporter of the AWB, has stated that attaching the ban to S.1805 would be the only chance this year of renewing the ban, though it remains to be seen whether this will hold true or not.

One particularly interesting aspect of all this, something that should be pointed out, even if we all know the answer already... if what Schumer says is true, that this was the only chance of the ban being renewed this year, why did he, Feinstein, Kennedy, Clinton, DeWine, Durbin, Boxer, Kerry, Murkowski, Reed, and all the other anti-gun senators vote NO on final passage of S.1805?

Opposition to the concept of "immunity" to the gun industry is not an adequate excuse. Remember, when this ban expires, according to what these senators have been telling us repeatedly, "Uzis and AK-47s will flood the streets, countless police officers and innocent children will be slaughtered, etc." If this is truly the case, isn't losing the ability to sue gun makers a small price to pay for the implied "thousands of lives" that would be saved as a result of the ban being renewed, especially if this bill was the only chance for this to happen?

As John R. Lott, Jr. pointed out in an editorial today, "gun-control advocates should fear the votes today in the Senate, but not for the reason that most people think. Despite claims that letting the ban on some semi-automatic weapons expire will cause a surge of police killings and a rise in gun crimes, letting the law expire will show the uselessness of gun-control regulations. A year from now, it will be obvious to everyone that all the horror stories about banning what has been labeled "assault weapons" were wrong."

[Fish Hawg]

You beat me to it. Hopefuly the house will vote it out.

[2LEYS]

If this makes it to Bush's desk, and he signs it, and he has said he would, we will have a democrat in the whitehouse next year.

GOD HELP US ALL!!!

[fishncliff]

I thought Bush said he would not sign the bill with anti-gun attachments.

[2LEYS]

The Bill itself is anti-gun. But all I heard was that if it made it to his desk he would sign it.

[KingFisher85]

The one thing that is perhaps even more painful than watching anti-gun senators like Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, and Reed stand up on the floor of the Senate and release a torrent of mistruths and distortions regarding guns, is to have "our side" ineffectively and timidly respond with weak arguments.

Sen. Larry Craig was absolutely eloquent in presenting an honest, factual, and concise response to the contorted "logic" and emotional rhetoric that was presented by the anti-gun crowd, and should be commended for his efforts.

If you haven't already done so, please take a moment to call Sen. Craig's office (202-224-2752) and express your thanks for the superb job he did in representing gun owners and defending the Second Amendment.

Sen. Larry Craig Campaign
P.O. Box 2754
Boise, ID 83701


In addition, Sen. George Allen of Virginia, who is undoubtedly going to be subject to very hostile criticism from anti-gun groups for his last-minute decision to vote against the ban, could use our thanks and encouragement too (202-224-4024). Sen. Allen had indicated in prior correspondence with constituents that he would support renewing the ban, but just a day before the vote, changed his position on the issue, saying "I have concluded, after a review of the evidence, that this symbolic ban of 19 firearms chosen for cosmetic reasons is a meaningless, toothless law that has virtually no impact on crime."

While every single vote against the ban deserves our thanks, Sen. Allen's bold turnaround has drawn the ire of the anti-gun lobby, and they will try to use this against him in his 2006 re-election bid... a hefty campaign warchest will help him fight back against these attacks.

Sen. George Allen Campaign
Attn. Tom Benedetti
1805 Monument Ave.
Suite 203
Richmond, VA 23220


And, of course, do not forget to call your own senator and express your thanks or disappointment for their vote on the AWB renewal. Here is how senators voted Tuesday on adding the AWB renewal to S.1805:

Alabama:
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay

Alaska:
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Nay

Arizona:
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay

Arkansas:
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea

California:
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

Colorado:
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Nay

Connecticut:
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea

Delaware:
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea

Florida:
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea

Georgia:
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Nay

Hawaii:
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea

Idaho:
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay

Illinois:
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea

Indiana:
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea

Iowa:
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea

Kansas:
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay

Kentucky:
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay

Louisiana:
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay

Maine:
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea

Maryland:
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea

Massachusetts:
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea

Michigan:
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea

Minnesota:
Coleman (R-MN), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Yea

Mississippi:
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Nay

Missouri:
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Nay

Montana:
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Burns (R-MT), Nay

Nebraska:
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay

Nevada:
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay

New Hampshire:
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Nay

New Jersey:
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea

New Mexico:
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Nay

New York:
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea

North Carolina:
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea

North Dakota:
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea

Ohio:
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea

Oklahoma:
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Nickles (R-OK), Nay

Oregon:
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Pennsylvania:
Santorum (R-PA), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Nay

Rhode Island:
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea

South Carolina:
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Hollings (D-SC), Yea

South Dakota:
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting

Tennessee:
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Nay

Texas:
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay

Utah:
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay

Vermont:
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea

Virginia:
Allen (R-VA), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Yea

Washington:
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea

West Virginia:
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea

Wisconsin:
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea

Wyoming:
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Thomas (R-WY), Nay

[HntnFsh]

Heard today that it was shot down because of the attachments.Unfortunately the gunmakers probably are a long way from protection against frivolous suits.But it looks like Clintons gun ban wont get extended for another 10 years either.

[Fish Hawg]

But it looks like Clintons gun ban wont get extended for another 10 years either

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Lets sure hope so :smile:

[Stratocaster]

Anyone catch the editorial written by the Oregonian editors the other day, pertaining to the bill protecting the gun industry? Made me sick. They implied that with the expiration of the Brady bill the police will be further endangered. Now , anyone thats paid attention knows that any so called "banned weapons" are still available as "pre-ban". And that the gun industry would be immune to any and all lawsuits?? The truth being, it protects them from the criminal use of a firearms, not malfunctioning firearms. They also implied that all gun dealers would be immune to lawsuits and liability, again thats false. If a dealer breaks the law he or she would be held accountible under the current laws. Shame on the Oregonian for misleading the public on these issues. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] Should Ford be sued because a crazed lunatic drove a Ford truck into a crowd meaning to cause harm? Or Gerber be held liable for an argument that leads to a stabbing death, using one of their knives?

[ 03-03-2004, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: fisherdan ]

[flyx4]

we need gun control and we dont need fully automatic weapons. I sure hope that they extend the ban becuase dozens of fully automatic weapons will be available as soon as the sunset law act is up. Many states did not vote on backgrounds checks and the 1994 ban did it for every state so if the sunset act fails then many of these laws will be lifted. I understand many states voted on background checks but not all, thats why we need more gun control. There is no REAL reason to own an M-16 or AR-15 even if they are semi-auto. The one excuse everone gives me is that it is are right, WRONG nowhere in the second amendment does it talk about individual rights. The second amendment states for federal or state militias to be well armed or somewhere in that sense. Before you all chew my a$$ I have been hunting my whole life and own many types of guns and was totally anti-gun control until I researched it. We need certain levels of gun control not Gun bans. For someone to say they hope the sunset act fails makes them look stupid because you obviously dont know what its about.

flyx4,
There is a better reason to own semi-auto rifles than there is reason to own hunting arms. Pull it out.
Do you value your rights? Disarmed population are never free.

The first thing dictators do is disarm the people, next they round up those opposed to them and then they exterminate them.

The term "The People" is referring to the same people in all of the amendments. Note the comas in the text of the Second Amendment. I have highlighted the important part for you so it doesn't go over your head.

Amendment II

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 .


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment IV

The right of THE PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by THE PEOPLE.

And fianly the most over lookes Amendment

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to THE PEOPLE.

Now why do you refuse to see that THE PEOPLE is the citizens of the US.

[ 03-04-2004, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Fish Hawg]

Keta, well said [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[flyx4]

A well regulated Militia, Marines,navy army etc. not citizens

Being neccesary to a free state, So it is saying that we need navy, marines,army etc. to protect us and be free.

The wright of the THE PEOPLE referring to the PEOPLE of the Marines,Army,Navy, etc.

The PEOPLE in this statement is not relevant to Public or citizens.


All I am saying is that we need GUN CONTROL not GUN BANNING Such as the Sunset act.

You are really stretching things with your gross MISINTERPRETATION of the Second Amendment, in fact, you put Sara Brady and Diane Feinstein to shame.

It's the same THE PEOPLE in all of the 10 Amendments in the Bill of RIGHTS . If they were refering to the military they would have said " The Navy ".

The " Militia " referred to in the Bill of Rights again is THE PEOPLE and not the National Guard, the "Standing Army" or any other branch of the armed forces. Here's what the law has to say about the Militia .

THE LAW

Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia , which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."


Some Interesting Quotes:

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia.
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
-- Tench Coxe, 1788.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice
for that freedom."
-- John F. Kennedy

"A little gun control is like being a " Little Pregnant " It just doesn't end"
--Keta

[ 03-04-2004, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[flyx4]

I guess that you could interpret the second amendment either way. All I am saying is that what we have now is good, nobody needs a fully automatic weapon for any reason. Everyone has there own opinions and we are both putting words into the founding fathers mouth with are posts however the founders never planned for us to have this type of technology for weapons. They also did not know we would need firearms for protection or sporting uses like back then. We could argue this for weeks and not get anywhere. [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

I am just trying to see it both ways.

Full auto and semi-auto firearms (anything military) is what the Second Amendment is about. It has nothing to do with hunting firearms or hunting. It is about KEEPING OUR FREEDOM .

Did you not read the law in regard to who the "Militia" is? How can "THE PEOPLE" mean two different things in the same document? "THE PEOPLE" are the people , there is no other way to "interpret" it. "The Bill of Rights guarantees OUR RIGHTS , the Constitution limits and spells out what the government can and can't do.

By the way, have you tried to purchase a full auto lately?


The folowing quote from you shows that you do not know what you are talking about. As for the technology... well "The People" need to be as well armed as the military and Federal Police (Unconstitutional) to protect our freedom FROM THEM !

They also did not know we would need firearms for protection or sporting uses like back then

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">

[ 03-04-2004, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[KingFisher85]

Now, I thought you have had to have a class 3 license for a long time, well before 94 to buy a fully auto gun?

AND Keta [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[ 03-05-2004, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: KingFisher85 ]

KF85,
It depends on your state laws. Class III permits are hard to get in ALL states but if you have a clean record and know the right people they can be obtained in most states. I haven't had a FFL for many years and don't know what Washington and Oregon Law is in regard to Class III Firearms.

Here's a link to the ATF's STATE GUN LAWS page.

[flyx4]

Its about what is right and what is wrong. I am damn proud to be an American and wont give up my guns for anything and if you would read my post I am just trying to see it both ways.

So you will turn down any attempt to continue the sunset act. I give you credit you know what you are talking about if more people would get involved to understand what is actually happening everthing would be good fine. There will never be a day when they take away our sporting arms because politicians cannot disarm americans.

If it was up to me I would get rid of ALL gun laws and focus on misbehavior rather than on the tools.
In reality this will never happen. There are some that should NEVER be able to own a firearm, but they should also be either in prison or a facility for the mentally ill. Many things can be used to kill and hurt people (like airliners)and it is impossable to "Ban" them all.

[id. painter]

Very similar situation in the public schools.

They out lawed any garment with a spikey thing on it (because you can slash someone with it).
And yet I hand out a most deadly weapon each and every day ,, A # 2 graphite pencil. :whazzup: id. p.

[Shark Bait]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by flyx4:
I sure hope that they extend the ban becuase dozens of fully automatic weapons will be available as soon as the sunset law act is up.

WRONG! The only full auto (Class 3) firearms that will be legal to purchase/own by civilians are the same ones that are legal now. The Gun Owner Protection Act of 1986 (which the NRA hand a hand in unfortunately) prohibits the making of, selling of, and ownership of new machineguns for the civilian market. If I had ~$12,000 to $15,000 laying around I could LEGALLY purchase a pre-1986 Colt RR machinegun. I COULD NOT purchase of post sample without becoming a licensed dealer.

Lucky for me Oregon is a class 3 friendly state. As soon as I find one that I can afford I will submit the form 4's with two passport photos, two fingerprint cards, and a check for $200.00 to the BATF and wait for approval. Of course I will be approved, after probably a 3-6 month wait, because I have never done anything to warrant a denial. Then it's off to my private range.

There is no REAL reason to own an M-16 or AR-15 even if they are semi-auto.

What kind of car or boat do you drive? Will any of them go faster than the posted speed limit? There is no REAL reason to own one?

Why do they sell cars that are advertised as having a top speed approaching 200mph or even 110 or 85? There are no public streets anywhere in the USA where you or I can drive that fast. All vehicles should be speed limited regardless of the use so that no one can ever break the speed laws again. That way when someone holds up a bank their "high speed getaway" won't be quite so fast.

The one excuse everone gives me is that it is are right, WRONG nowhere in the second amendment does it talk about individual rights. The second amendment states for federal or state militias to be well armed or somewhere in that sense.

How many of the other amendments that have the phrase "the right of the people" in them don't apply to individuals?

The only point that you and I agree on are the back ground checks. And only in that they should be done on each purchaser. When Oregon was responsible for its own checks it could and would in the case of handguns (back then we had a pesky waiting period for hanguns) take days to get an approval. Now I can pay and play in the same day. So not all of the "ban" is/was a bad thing.

Flame suit on!

[Fish Hawg]

Shark Bait, [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] Well said [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Fish_N_Russ]

flyx4

I have been hunting my whole life and own many types of guns and was totally anti-gun control until I researched it

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">

dozens of fully automatic weapons will be available as soon as the sunset law act is up

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Well you didnt research it very well, because this is an absolutely wrong statement

The fact is, there have been only a handfull of crimes comitted with fully automatic weapons since the 1920s. How many people have been killed with cars from drunk drivers??? Do you see anyone banning cars? Is the same exact argument

There is no REAL reason to own an M-16 or AR-15 even if they are semi-auto.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">That is your opinion.......Shark Bait pretty much hit it on the head also.


There was a very good line in "The Passion"......it was something like, 'one does not know truth if they cannot hear it'. Well if you dont educate yourself fully and factually.......u get the idea :grin:

[2LEYS]

Full auto weapons have been highly regulated since 1937.

Also there are STATISTICS that show less than 1% of crimes are committed with the banned so called assault rifles. These statistics are pre 1994.

The ban covers cosmetic features of the weapons. It is only a play on emotions because they look menacing.

More people are killed by people driving above the speed limit than are killed with guns. So lets put resrictions on how fast a car can travel. If the car is capable of driving over 70 mph we need to get it off the market.

[Rauly]

I am getting tired of watching you guy's closely on this thread. So it will be closed, if the "YOU saids" and the "YOU are wrongs" don't stop here. This thread has good information on it. Don't let it go were I think it may be heading. Thank you.

The Management

[ 03-08-2004, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

[Degner]

Bit by bit we are having our rights chipped away. Its happening slowly so there is no real outcry from the general public. The reasons used for the regulations and restrictions being piled on us seem reasonable to some, perhaps even the majority, but as this progresses pretty soon the rights and privleges of any group or special interest will suffer. The anti-gun lobbys efforts are the most obvious attack on one of our most basic freedoms, but I suspect there are much more insidious ones as well. Letting the 94 ban expire is a step in the right direction. This ban is a statement from our government that they do not trust us with these guns. Thats rich. What happened to the people telling the government that we don't trust them with the power to regulate our guns? The founding fathers sure didn't have that trust and they made it clear.

[HOGGEMIN]

We curently have 16,000 gun laws in the books and still there is gun related crime. How many more laws do we need. If they would just infource just a small fractiuon then maybe we would have less gun related crime. It is true you can still own a full-auto gun in Oregon for a $200.oo tax stamp and a FBI background check, we don't hear about any crime related to them? Criminals want cheep guns not expencive ones. I shoot compition CMP shooting where we mostly use semi-auto AR-15's so don't deni my leagle fun or I might deni yours.


A armed socicity is a polite socicity.

Hey dummy it's lack of parienting not guns

Kennedys car has killed more people than my gun

guns don't kill people, people kill people

[ 03-08-2004, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

[KingFisher85]

This is one hot potato (topic of gun control) and I guarantee it will pop back up. :grin:

HOGGEM'IN


Guns Cause Crime like Fly's Cause Garbage :grin:

[ 03-08-2004, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: KingFisher85 ]

[Degner]

Originally posted by flyx4:
For someone to say they hope the sunset act fails makes them look stupid because you obviously dont know what its about. [/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I would say the reverse is true.
Maybe you should do some more "research"