them (the NRA) in that their concern is that if there is any limiting
legislation, it could become a slippery slope. I still don't see the need
for these weapons to be readily available, either for hunting (LOL) or home
defense, but oh well...
-----Original Message-----
From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:47 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Assault Weapons Ban Question
Your average gun-rights folks are fine with the ban, Marwan. Problem is, the
NRA lobby doesn't necessarily represent your "average" pro-gun citizen. The
NRA will fight any and all laws that restrict gun ownership in any way shape
or form.
So to answer your question, the part of the ban that says "you cannot own
this type of gun" is unacceptable to the NRA.
----- Original Message -----
From: Marwan Saidi
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 8:39 AM
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban Question
And that would be political. Why are they pushing so hard? (other than
they
are who they are) What part of the ban is not acceptable to gun-rights
folks? I really want to know.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:14 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban Question
>>I guess what I am asking is that I don't see the need for Uzis, Tec-9s
etc.
to be available at Wal-Mart, so why allow the ban to expire?
One of the reasons that I know of it the NRA is pushing HARD to keep this
issue from being voted on. I am sure there are many others.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marwan Saidi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:09 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Assault Weapons Ban Question
Ok, so I may not be a big fan of firearms, but they are allowed under the
Constitution and I am much less of a fan of any legislation that erodes
our
rights, BUT:
Why is the continuation of the Assault Weapons ban a big deal? I heard a
bit
on NPR this am about it and I am confused. I know that it is not as simple
as "The ban keeps these weapons off of the streets" because I know that it
does not. What I don't understand is why, aside from politics, is it a big
deal to extend the ban. Is there a tremendous price tag for keeping the
ban
in place? It seems that the Republicans have no desire to bring the issue
to
the floor, so it will expire. The Dems seem to want it brought up, because
they feel that it will be extended.
I guess what I am asking is that I don't see the need for Uzis, Tec-9s
etc.
to be available at Wal-Mart, so why allow the ban to expire?
(Not wanting to start a flame war, just curious as to why we would not
want
the ban extended)
Marwan Saidi
Webmaster - PFH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____
_____
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
