the connection between the other freedoms and the second amendment.
Most democracies do not have firearms enshrined in their constitutions
yet they do not exactly look oppressed. For intance, Canada, Britain,
Australia, New Zealand, Germany etc. are not what you would called
hotbeds of tyrrany, unless that is of course you're looking it from
the viewpoint of some sort of gun-nut or firearms fan-boi.
larry
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:57:15 -0500, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The ban of civil war relics is another aspect of the way the
> definition of "assault weapon" was peculiar. In the legalese of the
> bill, they referred to the existing legal definitions of rifle,
> pistol, shotgun, and antique. IIRC, the bill wasn't explicitly banning
> them but because they got caught up in the odd match of definitions,
> they were effectively banned. Just another example of how the law was
> peculiar in how it banned mostly cosmetic aspects. I think that was
> under the Reagan version of the ban and got removed in the Clinton
> revision.
>
> Yes, some banned and legal semi-auto guns can be modified to be
> fully-auto. But then the person would be in violation of a
> pre-existing Federal law prohibiting ownership of an automatic weapon.
>
> -Kevin
>
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know much about it but I was told the original
> > ban included a couple of powder loaded civil war
> > relics and that pissed off collectors.
> > Also, only fully-auto uzi's are banned. You can buy a
> > semi-auto uzi and saw off the pin in 5 minutes making
> > it fully-auto. The point is the ban was just for show
> > anyway.
> >
> > -sm
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
