P
PreserveFreedom
Guest
I hope he comes personally to try to get mine.
"None of my proposals would effect on hunters or sportsmen or people who use rifles"
- Thread starter RH
- Start date
Gunslinger
Moderator
B27, Bush is having to down play his support of the second so as not alienate some voters. All we need do is look to his RKBA record in TX to get a good idea of how he will act if elected president....I hope.
DZ, you were really paying attention weren't you?
Terri's mother, a strong conservative, called last night about ten minutes into the debate splutterring. (She doesn't cuss but when Gore is speaking she sure can splutter.
) She thought the debate was rigged and Bush was being ambushed. I had to agree. Gore seemed to know the questions even before they were asked and have rehearsed his answers. Some of the questions asked of Bush it appeared were designed to put him on the spot and make him look bad. One example was the NRA question. Another was the question about him being happy about putting people to death in TX.
Over all I felt Gore did make a better showing in this debate. I think that he lost his butt and all the fixtures in the two previous debates so they stacked the deck against him. In the end he did pretty well considering what he was up against and the only ones that did not see through it are those that were going to vote for Gore any way.....again I hope.
------------------
Gunslinger
I was promised a Shortycicle and I want a Shortycicle!
DZ, you were really paying attention weren't you?
Terri's mother, a strong conservative, called last night about ten minutes into the debate splutterring. (She doesn't cuss but when Gore is speaking she sure can splutter.
) She thought the debate was rigged and Bush was being ambushed. I had to agree. Gore seemed to know the questions even before they were asked and have rehearsed his answers. Some of the questions asked of Bush it appeared were designed to put him on the spot and make him look bad. One example was the NRA question. Another was the question about him being happy about putting people to death in TX.Over all I felt Gore did make a better showing in this debate. I think that he lost his butt and all the fixtures in the two previous debates so they stacked the deck against him. In the end he did pretty well considering what he was up against and the only ones that did not see through it are those that were going to vote for Gore any way.....again I hope.
------------------
Gunslinger
I was promised a Shortycicle and I want a Shortycicle!
GWB:"if we catch somebody illegally selling a gun, there needs to be a consequence. We keep -- somebody, you know, illegally using a"
What was he about to say with "WE KEEP"? I'll bet that he was about to say "We keep all sorts of records" and then his brain engaged and didn't let his mouth overload his @ss.
Mark my words, the lesser of two evils (GWB) is anti-gun. Maybe not as virulent as AG, but he has made statements (For example, a story in Houston POST) that he feels that handguns aren't necessary (I'm paraphrasing). When called on it, his staff first denied the statement. Then they hemmed and hawed and said they would get back to me. Then they said I was harassing the governors office and hung up on me. This occured PRIOR to GWB announcing he was running for PREZ.
Do you really think we will get a different government under GWB? The only difference will be how it's done (not out in the open like the DNC DOES - RNC will remove our rights, one at a time, under the table). Have we all forget the BETRAYAL of GB senior. NO NEW TAXES equated to the then LARGEST tax increase to that date. Bill Clinton beat him with a larger tax increase, but WE KNEW BC was going to do that. He even tried to federalize one seventh of the economy with national health care. That wasn't even considered prior to BC. NOW both candidates are discussing it like it was a national crisis.
What's the difference between DNC and RNC. They both lie about everything so they can get into power. The only difference is DNC lies about things and doesn't care what we think. RNC lies about things and then doesn't want us to find out about them, for fear we won't vote them back into office.
How far we have fallen if all the RNC GWB backers memories fade into nothingness over GB seniors promise of NO NEW TAXES. The lesser of two evils. What BS. They are virtually the same. They just want to give the appearance of being different. The outcome (in the long run) will be exactly the same. The only difference will be that the DNC will get us to a socialist environment MUCH QUICKER than the RNC will. But have no doubts, the RNC is traveling the same road as the DNC. They are just doing so at a slower rate.
How do you cook a lobster(the public)? VERY SLOWLY, so he doesn't know he's being cooked. DUH!!!!
What was he about to say with "WE KEEP"? I'll bet that he was about to say "We keep all sorts of records" and then his brain engaged and didn't let his mouth overload his @ss.
Mark my words, the lesser of two evils (GWB) is anti-gun. Maybe not as virulent as AG, but he has made statements (For example, a story in Houston POST) that he feels that handguns aren't necessary (I'm paraphrasing). When called on it, his staff first denied the statement. Then they hemmed and hawed and said they would get back to me. Then they said I was harassing the governors office and hung up on me. This occured PRIOR to GWB announcing he was running for PREZ.
Do you really think we will get a different government under GWB? The only difference will be how it's done (not out in the open like the DNC DOES - RNC will remove our rights, one at a time, under the table). Have we all forget the BETRAYAL of GB senior. NO NEW TAXES equated to the then LARGEST tax increase to that date. Bill Clinton beat him with a larger tax increase, but WE KNEW BC was going to do that. He even tried to federalize one seventh of the economy with national health care. That wasn't even considered prior to BC. NOW both candidates are discussing it like it was a national crisis.
What's the difference between DNC and RNC. They both lie about everything so they can get into power. The only difference is DNC lies about things and doesn't care what we think. RNC lies about things and then doesn't want us to find out about them, for fear we won't vote them back into office.
How far we have fallen if all the RNC GWB backers memories fade into nothingness over GB seniors promise of NO NEW TAXES. The lesser of two evils. What BS. They are virtually the same. They just want to give the appearance of being different. The outcome (in the long run) will be exactly the same. The only difference will be that the DNC will get us to a socialist environment MUCH QUICKER than the RNC will. But have no doubts, the RNC is traveling the same road as the DNC. They are just doing so at a slower rate.
How do you cook a lobster(the public)? VERY SLOWLY, so he doesn't know he's being cooked. DUH!!!!
BrokenArrow
New member
On Larry King Gore said he did not think there was any place for semi-automatic handguns in our society.
Born_Hillbilly
New member
I already have the Bush/Cheney bumper stickers and yard sign. But today I was handed a bumper sticker in a gunshop that said "Sportsmen for Bush". I have mixed feelings about the meaning(s) behind this slogan related to what has already been covered under this topic in above posts.
What does anyone else feel about this? I have only seen this term used by Gore recently; hence my uncomfort.
What does anyone else feel about this? I have only seen this term used by Gore recently; hence my uncomfort.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wallew:
Mark my words, the lesser of two evils (GWB) is anti-gun. Maybe not as virulent as AG, but he has made statements (For example, a story in Houston POST) that he feels that handguns aren't necessary (I'm paraphrasing). When called on it, his staff first denied the statement. Then they hemmed and hawed and said they would get back to me. Then they said I was harassing the governors office and hung up on me. This occured PRIOR to GWB announcing he was running for PREZ[/quote]
Wallew - I am a resident of Texas myself and have never heard the Governor express such a sentiment. Can you give me the issue of the Houston Post where he made that statement?
Certainly his record in Texas (signed CCW, campaigned for Governor as pro-CCW, signed protection against bogus lawsuits, etc.) sure doesn't seem to support such a statement.
Mark my words, the lesser of two evils (GWB) is anti-gun. Maybe not as virulent as AG, but he has made statements (For example, a story in Houston POST) that he feels that handguns aren't necessary (I'm paraphrasing). When called on it, his staff first denied the statement. Then they hemmed and hawed and said they would get back to me. Then they said I was harassing the governors office and hung up on me. This occured PRIOR to GWB announcing he was running for PREZ[/quote]
Wallew - I am a resident of Texas myself and have never heard the Governor express such a sentiment. Can you give me the issue of the Houston Post where he made that statement?
Certainly his record in Texas (signed CCW, campaigned for Governor as pro-CCW, signed protection against bogus lawsuits, etc.) sure doesn't seem to support such a statement.
Anyone who's spent any time over on the Legal/Political forum knows this debate about Bush has been going on for a long time.
Gore wants gun owners licensed, photographed and fingerprinted. He wants to ban "assault weapons." Which ones? The ones that were banned in 1994, or does he have a new list? A year ago on Larry King Live he said he would favor banning 9mm's and .380's. He wants a three-day waiting period at gun shows. And he came _very_ close in the debates to saying he wanted to register guns. He started to say it, but caught himself in mid-sentence.
Bush has, unfortunately, endorsed a couple of anti positions. He wants background checks at gun shows, but he wants them _instant_. Not that that makes many of us jump for joy.
There's a couple of important things to keep in mind, though: Bush signed the concealed carry bill in Texas, signed the pre-emption bill, signed the bill to prevent cities from suing gun manufacturers and more. I've said many times on the legal forum that my gut tells me that Bush won't go out of his way to pursue any gun control legislation. I think he's a lot more pro-gun than he lets on to be. When he's criticized for the concealed carry law, he says he trusts Texans to carry guns. Gore sure wouldn't say that.
Bush _has_ to appear moderate in all this. The NRA isn't even endorsing him! Why? They know it would be the kiss of death.
In a race this tight, anyone who doesn't vote for Bush has to know that they're trading principles for expediency. I respect the third-party voters, but just wish they'd rally to keep Gore out.
Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
Gore wants gun owners licensed, photographed and fingerprinted. He wants to ban "assault weapons." Which ones? The ones that were banned in 1994, or does he have a new list? A year ago on Larry King Live he said he would favor banning 9mm's and .380's. He wants a three-day waiting period at gun shows. And he came _very_ close in the debates to saying he wanted to register guns. He started to say it, but caught himself in mid-sentence.
Bush has, unfortunately, endorsed a couple of anti positions. He wants background checks at gun shows, but he wants them _instant_. Not that that makes many of us jump for joy.
There's a couple of important things to keep in mind, though: Bush signed the concealed carry bill in Texas, signed the pre-emption bill, signed the bill to prevent cities from suing gun manufacturers and more. I've said many times on the legal forum that my gut tells me that Bush won't go out of his way to pursue any gun control legislation. I think he's a lot more pro-gun than he lets on to be. When he's criticized for the concealed carry law, he says he trusts Texans to carry guns. Gore sure wouldn't say that.
Bush _has_ to appear moderate in all this. The NRA isn't even endorsing him! Why? They know it would be the kiss of death.
In a race this tight, anyone who doesn't vote for Bush has to know that they're trading principles for expediency. I respect the third-party voters, but just wish they'd rally to keep Gore out.
Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
The following was sent to the authors of a Washington Post article on the subject:
Your article in today’s Post on the gun issue in the current campaign missed an interesting point. Mr. Gore’s response to questions on the issue was a perfect example of what I have called “the too specific no.” Mr. Gore has insisted that he does “not want to take guns away from sportsmen” and that he has no intention of banning “the rifles used for hunting.”
Aside from the fact that this is the first time that any candidate had mentioned “banning” or “taking away” anything, the specificity should be suspect. Since Mr. Gore referred specifically to hunting, it should not surprise anyone if the large number (perhaps the majority) of gun owners who are not hunters, as well as hunters who use shotguns or handguns, become alarmed.
To put “the specific no” in terms you might better appreciate, it is as if a candidate stated that he did “not propose to censor weekly sports magazines” or did “not intend to license writers of religious newsletters.” A writer or editor for a daily newspaper might well have qualms about supporting that candidate, wondering just what publications he does plan to censor and what writers he does want to control.
And how, one might ask, would Mr. Gore go about “banning” any guns? Tanks in the streets? Soldiers searching homes? A million Wacos all across the country? It is too bad that the press, often eager to support a ban on handguns, or “assault” rifles, or “evil” shotguns, never asks how its gun-free Utopia would be achieved without the use of massive force and violations of the very civil rights it claims to support.
Your article in today’s Post on the gun issue in the current campaign missed an interesting point. Mr. Gore’s response to questions on the issue was a perfect example of what I have called “the too specific no.” Mr. Gore has insisted that he does “not want to take guns away from sportsmen” and that he has no intention of banning “the rifles used for hunting.”
Aside from the fact that this is the first time that any candidate had mentioned “banning” or “taking away” anything, the specificity should be suspect. Since Mr. Gore referred specifically to hunting, it should not surprise anyone if the large number (perhaps the majority) of gun owners who are not hunters, as well as hunters who use shotguns or handguns, become alarmed.
To put “the specific no” in terms you might better appreciate, it is as if a candidate stated that he did “not propose to censor weekly sports magazines” or did “not intend to license writers of religious newsletters.” A writer or editor for a daily newspaper might well have qualms about supporting that candidate, wondering just what publications he does plan to censor and what writers he does want to control.
And how, one might ask, would Mr. Gore go about “banning” any guns? Tanks in the streets? Soldiers searching homes? A million Wacos all across the country? It is too bad that the press, often eager to support a ban on handguns, or “assault” rifles, or “evil” shotguns, never asks how its gun-free Utopia would be achieved without the use of massive force and violations of the very civil rights it claims to support.
There must be a different type of hunter now days. When my uncle and everyone else that I knew went out hunting, they carried their "sniper rifle" as well as a side arm. The side arm was used for snakes, rabid critters, or "finishing off" a bad shot that left the animal down but not out. Now, on hunting shows, they only have the rifle or the shotgun, no side arm. It's like going into combat, you relay on just one firearm that has limited uses instead of two that will cover just about any incident that may occur? Bad judgement in my eyes.
And the statments about hunting or "sportsman". I would rather hunt with a pistol due to the greater challage. Also, you don't get the barrel of a handgun snagged in vines/trees. If you are alone during your hunt you don't have to worry about going across fence lines or down into a ravine (you don't have anyone to hand your rifle too for safety but a pistol can be holstered).
These anti-defense people are barking up the wrong tree. If "guns" are the source of crime, then crime was, by their logic, non-existant before firearms where invented. History has proven this to be untrue. In areas, in current history, that firearms are not available to the masses, mass murders have been commited using nothing more then a machatie(sp) or even sharpened pieces of wood. In countries with very severe capital punishments, one would think, by the anti's logic, that crime would not exist, but it does. Nothing is a deterrent to a person or group that has murder, hate, or greed on their minds. We've noticed that the "cream" of the crop will do anything to get what they want, what makes you think that the "bottom of the barrel" folks will not do the same thing?
Politicians talk about the far right and the far left. The deem themselves the "solutions" to all of our problems, yet they are just as bad, many times even worse, then those who they call criminals. The only difference between the two is that one does his or her crimes illegally while the other does the same crimes but pass laws to make it legal for them. We, as true American's, are the center of these extremes. We try to put into place a check and balance system to keep both extremes from destroying our heritage. Since we fight on two fronts, our frustrations and our resolve to "put things right" are dimenished and many just give up.
Firearms are firearms, whether they are long or hand. They function in the same manner and the result is the same. Sure, handguns can be concealed, but so can a sawed down rifle or shotgun. You remove one, then the other will be created. Laws are designed to "make" things better, but often result, using prohibition as my prime example, make things worse. Some laws, meant to protect ourselves from ourselves, create even more animosity toward society as a whole. This leads to the death of a Republic.
In a way, I sometimes wish that bore will win. This way, you will see your fellow American's, at least some of them, in their true light. It may force action or it may open up a new forum "Everyone is moving, what is the best place to live" or "TFL is buying an island, please donate so we can live free". Today's vote is like opting for chemotheropy or no treatment at all. A cancer has spread and voting for the "lesser" evil will only slow down the cancer while voting for the "greater" evil will allow the cancer to run rampant. The cancer will eventionally take over and destroy the host.
Stupid people, and government, think that all will be "hunky dory" if firearms are outlawed. That everyone will be dancing in the streets, be free of crime, and live "happily ever after". This brings me to one conclusion... They do inhale!
USP45usp
And the statments about hunting or "sportsman". I would rather hunt with a pistol due to the greater challage. Also, you don't get the barrel of a handgun snagged in vines/trees. If you are alone during your hunt you don't have to worry about going across fence lines or down into a ravine (you don't have anyone to hand your rifle too for safety but a pistol can be holstered).
These anti-defense people are barking up the wrong tree. If "guns" are the source of crime, then crime was, by their logic, non-existant before firearms where invented. History has proven this to be untrue. In areas, in current history, that firearms are not available to the masses, mass murders have been commited using nothing more then a machatie(sp) or even sharpened pieces of wood. In countries with very severe capital punishments, one would think, by the anti's logic, that crime would not exist, but it does. Nothing is a deterrent to a person or group that has murder, hate, or greed on their minds. We've noticed that the "cream" of the crop will do anything to get what they want, what makes you think that the "bottom of the barrel" folks will not do the same thing?
Politicians talk about the far right and the far left. The deem themselves the "solutions" to all of our problems, yet they are just as bad, many times even worse, then those who they call criminals. The only difference between the two is that one does his or her crimes illegally while the other does the same crimes but pass laws to make it legal for them. We, as true American's, are the center of these extremes. We try to put into place a check and balance system to keep both extremes from destroying our heritage. Since we fight on two fronts, our frustrations and our resolve to "put things right" are dimenished and many just give up.
Firearms are firearms, whether they are long or hand. They function in the same manner and the result is the same. Sure, handguns can be concealed, but so can a sawed down rifle or shotgun. You remove one, then the other will be created. Laws are designed to "make" things better, but often result, using prohibition as my prime example, make things worse. Some laws, meant to protect ourselves from ourselves, create even more animosity toward society as a whole. This leads to the death of a Republic.
In a way, I sometimes wish that bore will win. This way, you will see your fellow American's, at least some of them, in their true light. It may force action or it may open up a new forum "Everyone is moving, what is the best place to live" or "TFL is buying an island, please donate so we can live free". Today's vote is like opting for chemotheropy or no treatment at all. A cancer has spread and voting for the "lesser" evil will only slow down the cancer while voting for the "greater" evil will allow the cancer to run rampant. The cancer will eventionally take over and destroy the host.
Stupid people, and government, think that all will be "hunky dory" if firearms are outlawed. That everyone will be dancing in the streets, be free of crime, and live "happily ever after". This brings me to one conclusion... They do inhale!
USP45usp
Gore's whole campaign is based on fear, class warfare and pitting groups against each other. It's pitiful. He's even taken it the point of pitting handgun owners against "hunters and sportsmen". But he is a liar. First he will ban handguns, then he will try to ban all semi-auto weapons. We had better get off our duffs and defeat this bum or we can kiss private gun ownership good bye.
Jorah Lavin
New member
USP45usp wrote
"""Stupid people, and government, think that all will be "hunky dory" if firearms are outlawed. That everyone will be dancing in the streets, be free of crime, and live "happily ever after". """
Don't think for a minute that "crime reduction" is ANY part of this program. That is the honey they pour over the tyranny pill to make it attractive to the sheep. People are lazy and afraid, looking for someone to protect them. They will sell their freedom for the promise of safety, never seeing that the "safety programs" actually lead to less safety and less freedom. (You have to keep the sheep afraid to keep them under control.) This isn't about safety for "the children" or anything else but control, Control, CONTROL.
Letting the "other side" control the language of a debate practically hands the debate over to them. Think of the situation around rape many years ago. Lots of people in power stated in various ways that rape was caused BY THE VICTIM, by being "loose" or "luring the attacker."
Once the women's freedom fighters redefined rape as being a crime of power, not of sex, they also redefined the "right way" for people in power to think about the crime, and also freed the victims from blaming themselves for the rest of their lives. In a similar way, if we let the "other side" define the terms, using phrases like "gun contol" and "crime control," then we look like loonies who are in favor of crime. It might seem silly to switch to using phrases like "victim disarmament," but over time, things like this can sink in. What sheep wants to be more vulnerable? If we can prove to the sheep that their "shepherds" are really wolves...
While the fact remains that creeping tyranny is the real threat, most people think "that can't happen here." At the very least, we can pull the support of the fearful sheep out from under the tyrant's political platform.
-Moss
Check it out: http://www.ccops.org/
"""Stupid people, and government, think that all will be "hunky dory" if firearms are outlawed. That everyone will be dancing in the streets, be free of crime, and live "happily ever after". """
Don't think for a minute that "crime reduction" is ANY part of this program. That is the honey they pour over the tyranny pill to make it attractive to the sheep. People are lazy and afraid, looking for someone to protect them. They will sell their freedom for the promise of safety, never seeing that the "safety programs" actually lead to less safety and less freedom. (You have to keep the sheep afraid to keep them under control.) This isn't about safety for "the children" or anything else but control, Control, CONTROL.
Letting the "other side" control the language of a debate practically hands the debate over to them. Think of the situation around rape many years ago. Lots of people in power stated in various ways that rape was caused BY THE VICTIM, by being "loose" or "luring the attacker."
Once the women's freedom fighters redefined rape as being a crime of power, not of sex, they also redefined the "right way" for people in power to think about the crime, and also freed the victims from blaming themselves for the rest of their lives. In a similar way, if we let the "other side" define the terms, using phrases like "gun contol" and "crime control," then we look like loonies who are in favor of crime. It might seem silly to switch to using phrases like "victim disarmament," but over time, things like this can sink in. What sheep wants to be more vulnerable? If we can prove to the sheep that their "shepherds" are really wolves...
While the fact remains that creeping tyranny is the real threat, most people think "that can't happen here." At the very least, we can pull the support of the fearful sheep out from under the tyrant's political platform.
-Moss
Check it out: http://www.ccops.org/
Moss, you are exactly correct. People (in general) ARE lazy, and they are only getting worse. And all of what Government does IS about nothing more than control. Oomgowwa, Government powa!
Look at what control Govt. has over the retirees of this country! The old folks are kept in constant fear by politicians using Social(ist) Security as a political weapon, and the oldsters, being too short-sighted when they were younger to make provisions for retirement, and/or just plain lazy, vote for whomever will promise to keep the system of organized plunder going, freedom be damned. When I was a kid, my parents told me the world doesn't owe me a living; apparently, a lot of seniors have forgotten this lesson.
Getting back to guns, of course the average lazy, short-sighted person who only buys what the media is spewing and does no investigation himself is going to conclude that guns (or drugs, or any other easily-villified inanimate object) are the cause of the problem. The intellectual laziness in this country, fostered by Govt.-run schools, is the root cause of nearly all of our problems.
DAL
------------------
Reading "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," by Ayn Rand, should be required of every politician and in every high school.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
--Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)
GOA, JPFO, PPFC, CSSA, LP, ARI, NRA
[This message has been edited by DAL (edited October 23, 2000).]
Look at what control Govt. has over the retirees of this country! The old folks are kept in constant fear by politicians using Social(ist) Security as a political weapon, and the oldsters, being too short-sighted when they were younger to make provisions for retirement, and/or just plain lazy, vote for whomever will promise to keep the system of organized plunder going, freedom be damned. When I was a kid, my parents told me the world doesn't owe me a living; apparently, a lot of seniors have forgotten this lesson.
Getting back to guns, of course the average lazy, short-sighted person who only buys what the media is spewing and does no investigation himself is going to conclude that guns (or drugs, or any other easily-villified inanimate object) are the cause of the problem. The intellectual laziness in this country, fostered by Govt.-run schools, is the root cause of nearly all of our problems.
DAL
------------------
Reading "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," by Ayn Rand, should be required of every politician and in every high school.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
--Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)
GOA, JPFO, PPFC, CSSA, LP, ARI, NRA
[This message has been edited by DAL (edited October 23, 2000).]
Moss makes an excellent point: semantics is, or should be, an important weapon here. He who rules the vocabulary often rules the mind--and the votes. Words become a vital battleground. "Pro-gun" may need to be revised in terms of our sloganeering. "Pro-self-defense"--or something similar--would probably grab the gut best. We should be countering the other side's cries for "gun control" with our own for "criminal control."
Let's just cut to the chase, boys and girls. Gomer Gore is a full blown Marxist Socialist, and intends to eventually impose a communistnazi police state. When he and komrades decide to exterminate millions of us gun owning "vermin," there will be no hesitation on their part to do so.
As Gomer's great hero, Unlce Joe Stalin said, "One murder is a tragedy: a million murders is merely a statistic."
Pure and simple. J.B.
As Gomer's great hero, Unlce Joe Stalin said, "One murder is a tragedy: a million murders is merely a statistic."
Pure and simple. J.B.
Maybe this was stated in this thread but I didn't happen to see it. Gore did mention handguns in at least two of the debates. He said that he will work to get rid of "cheap handguns". To be understood as "saturday night specials" and such. But we all know, that "cheap handguns" upon interpretation by a Gore (and Hillary/Schumer in NY, along with Sara Brady)administration will be ALL handguns. These people are scary!
T
------------------
If not you, then who?
[This message has been edited by tprT (edited October 22, 2000).]
T
------------------
If not you, then who?
[This message has been edited by tprT (edited October 22, 2000).]
Make no mistake about it, Gore and others of his ilk are after ALL guns in the end. If they successfuly rid of us of our so called evil "cheap handguns" there will be little else to stop them going after the rest of our guns.
Vote wisely on November 7th,
------------------
Rick
Vote wisely on November 7th,
------------------
Rick