LA Times statement

L

Little-e

New member
From the LA Times web page:

" S>AN FRANCISCO--As Gov. Gray Davis signed the most sweeping assault weapon ban in the nation Monday, proponents looked ahead to the difficulties of making the law work.
     Critics promise a rapid court challenge, partly because they contend that the measure is so vague that a law-abiding gun owner might not know if his or her weapon is prohibited."

We're fighting the wrong damn thing!!! It will be challenged because we are not sure what weapons are banned??? How about NONE of them. This is insane. We are so wrapped up in PC we are not fighting for what we should be fighting for.
 
This is just the LA Slime's take on the issue. They want the sheeple to believe that we'll support "reasonable" (gag, retch, spew) restrictions.

------------------
Ignorance is takin' over,
We gotta take the power back.
--Rage Against The Machine
 
I'm all for reasonable restrictions--on politicians. An assault politician shall be defined as follows:
1. Capable of accepting bribes, kick-backs, or illegal campaign contributions.
2. Has a nose which protrudes conspicuously from face, and said proboscis tends to lengthen with each word spoken.
3. Has wind-suppressed hair, tooth lugs (also known as, "caps") and soft, sweaty palms.
4. Is capable of lying at the speed of sound, and can spray out misinformation faster than it can be corrected.

Nobody needs an assault politician. Let's enact some sensible legislation, for the children. If it saves one right, isn't it worth it?

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

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken
 
Ipecac--

That was beautiful!! What a classic. Do I have your permission to use your proposed legislation in my conversations?
 
Coineach, this is NOT just the LA Times' take on the issue. Remember, it's NRA policy, and has been for the LONGEST time, not to challenge gun control laws on Second amendment grounds. Issues like vagueness ARE the only thing this law will be challenged on, if the NRA has any say in the matter!

It's all part of the NRA's grand strategy of avoiding any real confrontation, so that we can lose slowly instead of running the risk of losing it all at once in a Supreme court ruling striking down the Second amendment. The fact that that strategy makes our eventual defeat inevitiable doesn't seem to bother them.
 
All other pro-gun organizations certainly have the ability to file suits based on the Second Amendment if they are so inclined. If they feel the NRA is not stepping up to the plate with regard to bringing this issue to a head why haven't they taken their shot?

=rod=
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top