This is copied from another site's board. I went to the NY Times archives but they want to sell that info. (http://archives.nytimes.com/archives/search/fastweb?search) start of post -- New York Times: `rapid-fire monster` The New York Times continues the onslaught against the American right to keep and bear arms with yesterday’s article-Congress never Even Got to Vote to Ban This Weapon.(NY Times 6-20-99 page wk3) The weapon-"one extreme weapon, the long-range, semiautomatic, .50caliber sniper rifle." The article concentrated on the Barrett .50-caliber 82A1 rifle. The fact, which was mentioned, that the rifle weighs 28 pounds and costs $6,800 was not seen as a negative for wide-spread purchase. They used it in an attack on its possession. “This 28-pound, rapid-fire monster costs $6,800 and hardly seems like a sporting rifle.” Democrats had the General Accounting Office do an undercover investigation. They found the government “underwrites the civilian market” by selling surplus ammunition to a private company. Among the other arguments against the rifle- “easier to buy than a handgun,” “sell...18 year old,” “in the hands of terrorists, religious cults and drug traffikers;” “destroy armor-reinforced vehicles, punch through ballistic glass, pulverize an enemy bunker or knock down low-flying aircraft.” The main attack is the creeping propaganda used over the decades, that Americans have the “right” to keep sporting rifles, but not military rifles. Since the advent of the “copkiller bullet” the anti-gun argument is any rifle that can penetrate the “bullet proof vest” is a bannable rifle. Unfortunately the pro-gun faction at the top, knew that all ballistic jackets and vests are not equal and that a wide range of firearm/ammunition combinations can penetrate. The “bullet proof vest” as totally bullet proof is rarely ever questioned by anyone, which leads the anti-gun argument to the conclusion that bullets that penetrate “bullet proof vest” are outlawable. The arguments used, in this New York Times article against a rifle few Americans own, are arguments which basically say the government has the right to ban all rifles. What rifle is not considered “deadly accurate” by the anti-gun faction? What “high” power rifle does not penetrate? What rifle isn’t owned by the “terrorists, religious cults and drug traffikers”, the dangerous people use in most anti-gun arguments? “Hardly seems like a sporting rifle.” Where in the U.S. Constitution or Supreme Court ruling, did the anti-gun writers find that theory written? //////The consensus of the anti-gun faction is never let the U.S. Constitution get in the way of a good story, asking for more and more gun control. --- end of post "loopholes" anyone?
Well, folks, it's starting again.
- Thread starter Oatka
- Start date