I think the debate over gun ownership should be a local issue. Makes a
big difference whether you are in inner city Baltimore or rural
Montana.
Dana
- Original Message -
From: Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:51:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Assault Weapo
Jeff,
Thanks for that good information.
Jerry Johnson
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
that the NRA does in fact represent the views of most gun owners on this issue, particularly those who know the facts.
One of the problems with the assault weapons ban is that it doesnt actually have anything to do with assault weapons. This is another case of congress tacking on a provocative
We is evil is all.
So are you still in the US or elsewhere by now. If you can't answer
because of obvious reasons, that's cool.
larry
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:20:29 -0400, Timothy Heald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How dare you people have this conversation while I am not around:)
>
> Tim -- Far
Weapons Ban Question
How dare you people have this conversation while I am not around:)
Tim -- Far far away!!
>Actually if the enemy runs out of ammo they can be quite valuable. :)
_
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations
How dare you people have this conversation while I am not around:)
Tim -- Far far away!!
>Actually if the enemy runs out of ammo they can be quite valuable. :)
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
Actually if the enemy runs out of ammo they can be quite valuable. :)
> A gun of any size dropped in retreat is of little
> value.
> - Original Message -
> From: Jim Campbell
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 10:28 AM
> Subject: Re
I agree with that too. I'm not rabid about guns. Heck, I don't own
any. I'm more annoyed by our propensity to pass "feel good" laws like
the AWB that are about making people feel safer by banning
superficialities. Similar to how the federalizing of airport screeners
and random checks has been shown
I'm probably opening up myself to a royal flaming, but I cannot see
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
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
orism manifestos.
I will point out again, that these weapons would be illegal even if
the Assault Weapons Ban does expire.
-Kevin
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:26:59 -0400, Matthew Small
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have to say that I don't agree with the NRA about much of anything. I thi
have a Bazooka. He might have to use it to protect you some day.
- Matt Small
- Original Message -
From: S. Isaac Dealey
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 10:37 AM
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban Question
> Ok, fair enough. I guess that I can understand th
Its been years, but from what I remember, a 40mm round is around 12
inches in length, at least.
larry
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:03:53 -0400, Jerry Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It may be only 50 caliber in diameter, but it is really, really long.
>
> Actually, I have a black powder musket th
are stolen from legal
> owners.
>
> -Kevin
>
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:09:24 -0400, Marwan Saidi
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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
> legisl
It may be only 50 caliber in diameter, but it is really, really long.
Actually, I have a black powder musket that is an unfortunate .48 caliber. But it is six feet long. So there.
I would NOT want to get hit with a .50 (or 12.7mm).
(I don't want to get hit with _any_ projectile, in case anyone w
Lets look at it the other way:
a 50 cal is only a half an inch.
Or to rephrase it:
HOW MANLY IS A HALF-INCH YOU MISERABLE LITTLE WIMP. THAT'S MICROSCOPIC.
larry
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:41:08 -0400, Jerry Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But that's a 157!
>
> (O.K., a 1.57 caliber, but stil
ge -
> From: Jim Campbell
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 10:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Assault Weapons Ban Question
>
> No, no, no, Jerry...
>
> 40 mm is only 1.5 inches or so. Now what sounds bigger?
>
>
> An inch and
But that's a 157!
(O.K., a 1.57 caliber, but still...)
My numbers are still bigger.
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/04 11:28AM >>>
No, no, no, Jerry...
40 mm is only 1.5 inches or so. Now what sounds bigger?
An inch and a half, good sir.
or
FORTY MASSIVE MILLIMETERS, AH
A gun of any size dropped in retreat is of little value.
- Original Message -
From: Jim Campbell
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Assault Weapons Ban Question
No, no, no, Jerry...
40 mm is only 1.5 inches or so. Now what sounds
Well, given that 40mm is about 3.2 times as big as a wimpy .5 cal,
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
larry
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:24:17 -0400, Jerry Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's un-American.
>
> mm is a fancy French term, which we don't use around here.
>
> *belch*
>
> Wha
No, no, no, Jerry...
40 mm is only 1.5 inches or so. Now what sounds bigger?
An inch and a half, good sir.
or
FORTY MASSIVE MILLIMETERS, AH HA HA HA!
- Jim
Jerry Johnson wrote:
>That's un-American.
>
>mm is a fancy French term, which we don't use around here.
>
>*belch*
>
>What
That's un-American.
mm is a fancy French term, which we don't use around here.
*belch*
What caliber would that be in real-man terms?
Metrics is for wimps,
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/04 11:10AM >>>
If you're goinig to go that route, get a 40mm autocannon. Why use
something as wim
If you're goinig to go that route, get a 40mm autocannon. Why use
something as wimpy as a 50 or a few rockets. Pour on the testosterone.
larry
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:07:01 -0400, Jerry Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course not. Rambo proved a 50 is a one handed personal weapon. You need
Of course not. Rambo proved a 50 is a one handed personal weapon. You need a phalanx of rocket launchers for the bed of your pickup. See the heavily armed pickup trucks used by Chad against Libya in the late 80s for good examples.
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/04 10:57AM >>>
Do you me
up truck?
>:-)
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Kevin Graeme
>
>
>
> It's important to know though that a fully automatic M-16 would still
> be illegal even if there is no assault weapons ban.
>
> Assault weapon != machine gun.
>
> -
Do you mean that I cannot have the 50 mounted in the bed of my pickup truck?
:-)
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Graeme
It's important to know though that a fully automatic M-16 would still
be illegal even if there is no assault weapons ban.
Assault weapon != machin
It's important to know though that a fully automatic M-16 would still
be illegal even if there is no assault weapons ban.
Assault weapon != machine gun.
-Kevin
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:37:18 -0400, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find that a good M-16 is much more
> Ok, fair enough. I guess that I can understand that line
> of thinking from
> 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 (LO
AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban Question
Ok, fair enough. I guess that I can understand that line of thinking from
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 thes
n 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
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
e 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 pus
-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 vot
nal 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
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
okay! on a computer at the hotel now and I do see them... lol.
Dana
>Hi Dana,
>
>You be hanging out with some strange characters! (see below)
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: dana tierney
>
>... it¢¥s actually pretty cool. Make sure you respect the speed limit in
>town and otherwise you
so am I and they aren't even using a different character set!
-Original Message-
From: dana tierney
I am getting scattered chinese characters in my emails.
Dana
Outbound email scanned for viruses. (e230)
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User
uh... I don¢¥t see any strange characters in that message... unless you are talking about my spelling of pretty
I do however think this computer may be using a different ISO character set though, I am getting scattered chinese charactes in my emails.
Dana
>Hi Dana,
>
>You be hanging out with so
Hi Dana,
You be hanging out with some strange characters! (see below)
-Original Message-
From: dana tierney
... it¢¥s actually pretty cool. Make sure you respect the speed limit in
town and otherwise you don¢¥t see the law unless you call them, pretyy
much... and maybe not then :)
Ou
Yeah I just revisited Leakey TX on the way to Mexico... pop 387 and the biggest town in the county, which has one and a half sheriffs... it¢¥s actually pretty cool. Make sure you respect the speed limit in town and otherwise you don¢¥t see the law unless you call them, pretyy much... and maybe not
Everyone would be a football star? (basketball player, Congressman, Catholic Bishop)
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/03/04 11:37AM >>>
The way it was explained to me when I was hanging out in Montana was this:
"Yeah, here Montana you can drive down the road doing 100MPh, a beer between yo
Yeah, you better run from us well-armed rednecks!
Actually, the only gun in my home is a water pistol that doesn't work
very well (used for running off stray cats).
--benD
dana tierney wrote:
> nonono that¢¥s Kentucky...
>
> oops Nick and BenD are both in this thread aren¢¥t they...
>
> (run
> I'm wondering why I know that name... wasn't there a person who insulted
you, off-list, about some homosexual thread we were having? Was it that
person?
Why yes, yes it was. Something about being a fag commie or some such. And
yet I defended him when he got flamed here. Of course, he flamed to
Its gonna take more than that to get our guns. Enough bourbon and you have a
chance, but dont bet on it.
_
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 11:35 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Assault Weapons Ban
nonono that¢¥s Kentucky...
oops Nick
The way it was explained to me when I was hanging out in Montana was this:
"Yeah, here Montana you can drive down the road doing 100MPh, a beer between your legs,
your pistol sitting on the dashboard, and your 14 year old girlfriend with her head on your lap -
huh huh, aint that great?"
And I w
nonono that¢¥s Kentucky...
oops Nick and BenD are both in this thread aren¢¥t they...
(runrunruns...)
Dana
> Naw,
>
> You just have to offer up enough beer and wimmen, and maybe a shiny
> pocketknife. It's purdy!
>
> Jerry Johnson
>
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/03/04 11:22AM >>>
> I think
Naw,
You just have to offer up enough beer and wimmen, and maybe a shiny pocketknife. It's purdy!
Jerry Johnson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/03/04 11:22AM >>>
I think you can have rocket launchers in Montana with the proper federal
license. Good luck taking the guns from the people in that State.
I think you can have rocket launchers in Montana with the proper federal
license. Good luck taking the guns from the people in that State.
>Without average citizens having access to military grade weapons, the
>second US civil war which will bring down the American Empire can't
>happen.
>
>I t
Stupid democrat controlled congress taking away our guns!!!
>Driving in I just missed them saying something about the Assault Weapons
>Ban. It sounded like the police were asking lawmakers to renew the ban in
>their vote today, but I thought the expiration wasn't until Sept.
>> Without average citizens having access to military grade weapons, the
>> second US civil war which will bring down the American Empire can't
>> happen.
>>
>> I think that Americans should all have access to rocket launchers and
>> even Tomahawk missiles if they can afford them actually.
>
>Where
you forgot WMD, Gel, for shame.
>Without average citizens having access to military grade weapons, the
>second US civil war which will bring down the American Empire can't
>happen.
>
>I think that Americans should all have access to rocket launchers and
>even Tomahawk missiles if they can afford
> I think the correct tense is "was" and drop the "now". I don't think he
> liked us much. Called us deviants. Not sure if that was an insult.
I think it was meant to be an insult, yes. I, personally, was gratified
he noticed. It's nice to be noticed, you know?
--benD
[Todays Threads]
[This
e: Where's Cantrell? (Re: Assault Weapons Ban)
> So is Greg Luce now the 'Token' Christian? :-)
I think the correct tense is "was" and drop the "now". I don't think he
liked us much. Called us deviants. Not sure if that was an insult.
-Kevin
[Toda
> So is Greg Luce now the 'Token' Christian? :-)
I think the correct tense is "was" and drop the "now". I don't think he
liked us much. Called us deviants. Not sure if that was an insult.
-Kevin
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
So is Greg Luce now the 'Token' Christian? :-)
- Matt Small
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Graeme
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:28 AM
Subject: Where's Cantrell? (Re: Assault Weapons Ban)
> Without average citizens having access
OTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:58 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban
>
>
> I have an AR-15 that was manufactured in 1988, the things are
> more trouble than they are worth.
>
> The breach has a tendency to scrape and (short of hiring
>
-
From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 11:52 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban
Yeah the reporting is very badly worded. What I am getting is that they
attached the "gun show loophole" and Assault Weapons Ban as riders to a
bill
that wou
outside forces,
including the federal government should that time come.
_
From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 9:34 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Assault Weapons Ban
I see/hear the 2nd amendment quoted often, however, rarely hear about the
rest
of the
show up when the
country has been in hard times.
_
From: Lyons, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 8:55 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban
FN yes (having qualified on the Canadian C-1, C-2 SAW and C-3 variants).
But again what's th
e [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 9:28 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Where's Cantrell? (Re: Assault Weapons Ban)
>
> > Without average citizens having access to military grade weapons, the
> > second US civil war which will bring down the
> Without average citizens having access to military grade weapons, the
> second US civil war which will bring down the American Empire can't
> happen.
>
> I think that Americans should all have access to rocket launchers and
> even Tomahawk missiles if they can afford them actually.
Where is Adam
I see/hear the 2nd amendment quoted often, however, rarely hear about the rest
of the sentence in that amendment relating to a "Well regulated militia" Isn't
it somewhat a stretch to include an individual as militia or would it be more
like the National Guard?
-
Beyond all of that, the s
> I have no problems with the second amendment, lets just not forget that
the
> super ordinate clause is the phrase well regulated militia, meaning the
> national guard etc. Its been a position that the Supreme Court, the body
> charged with interpreting the Constitution and laws based on it, has
a
Without average citizens having access to military grade weapons, the
second US civil war which will bring down the American Empire can't
happen.
I think that Americans should all have access to rocket launchers and
even Tomahawk missiles if they can afford them actually.
This includes all t
> and National Guard and their equivalents. Moreover, lets not forget the
> first part of that amendment referring to a well-regulated militia. To me
> that means the national guard and reserves.
That's what it means to you, but that's not what it necessarily means. The
intent was to protect not o
with for over 120 years.
larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 8:48 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Assault Weapons Ban
>
>
> > Besides what's the use of this sort of firear
t need a weapon that can shred the trunk of a 40
year Spruce in less than 3 minutes.
larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 8:46 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban
>
>
> Not
ese weapons from the citizenry is such a good idea.
-Original Message-
From: Lyons, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 8:37 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban
Fortunately given that the ban was attached to a pretty nasty bill
indemnifying fire
> Besides what's the use of this sort of firearm to people. What is it
really
> good for but to kill lots of people. Its not something that you can hunt
> with - this sort of weapon is inaccurate beyond a hundred yards. All its
> good for is killing people. Better to get rid of that sort of weapon.
l to
shoot.
Beyond all of that, the second amendment protects our right to arm ourselves
for defense, not hunting or target shooting.
-Original Message-
From: Lyons, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 8:37 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Assault W
larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 6:24 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban
>
>
> Thank god. Reason and literacy in congress?
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Braver
Yeah the reporting is very badly worded. What I am getting is that they
attached the "gun show loophole" and Assault Weapons Ban as riders to a bill
that would protect gun manufacturers from litigation. These things being
added caused enough members to vote against the bill.
Looks l
> Thank god. Reason and literacy in congress?
Actually it looks like an interesting convergence of things. They passed the
AWB extension as an amendment to another gun bill that would have protected
gun manufacturers from lawsuits. They also passed an amendment to close the
gun show loophole and
Thank god. Reason and literacy in congress?
-Original Message-
From: Ben Braver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 3:57 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Assault Weapons Ban
I just heard something about Congress voting to not extend the
ban when it
I just heard something about Congress voting to not extend the
ban when it expires.
-Ben
>Driving in I just missed them saying something about the Assault Weapons
>Ban. It sounded like the police were asking lawmakers to renew the ban in
>their vote today, but I thought the expirati
Driving in I just missed them saying something about the Assault Weapons
Ban. It sounded like the police were asking lawmakers to renew the ban in
their vote today, but I thought the expiration wasn't until Sept.
Anyone hear anything about this?
-Kevin
[Todays Threads]
[This Me
ge-
From: Lon Lentz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 11:22 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban)
Thanks for the link. But I have 6 copies of the Constitution in various
forms.
States do not have rights. Govern
ember 09, 2002 11:14 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban)
>
> The second amendment was not written to mean that individuals have a
right
> to own a weapon...certainly not an assault
> weapon.
>
> He
ROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 7:25 AM
Subject: RE: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban)
> Larry,
> The only thing I would ask is this:
>
> How is the 1st amendment an individual right, but the second i
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 1:39 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban)
> Thanks for the link. But I have 6 copies of the Constitution in various
>forms.
>
> States do not have right
, 2002 2:09 PM
Subject: RE: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban)
> The Constitution states that the Congress will not maintain a standing
> army past 2 years (war notwithstanding). It seems to violate the
> Constitution everytime it passes a military appropriations b
The Constitution states that the Congress will not maintain a standing
army past 2 years (war notwithstanding). It seems to violate the
Constitution everytime it passes a military appropriations bill (this
contrasted with the fact that the Constitution says that Congress WILL
maintain a Navy). To
> Thanks for the link. But I have 6 copies of the Constitution in various
>forms.
>
> States do not have rights. Governments do not have rights. You can't
>enumerate a right to something that, by definition, is incapable of
>possessing such a thing.
>
> Why in the heck would our forefathers f
chard Henry Lee- Senator, First Congress
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?"
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 9:59 AM
To: CF-Community
one 1.
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5
Subscription:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 1:19 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: Re: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban)
>
>
>State right. based on the first clause of the statement.
>
>larry
>
>At 12:23 PM 12/6/02 -0500, you wrote:
>
ts are inherent to
individuals only.
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 1:19 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban)
State right. based on the first clause of the statement.
la
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 5:38 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban)
In that case please tell me how the following right allows abortion, jesus in piss as
art or expression, and allows the federal and state government to BAN the free
exer
ver more widening gaps in our beliefs.
Just hope we do something about it.
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 1:19 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban)
State right. ba
You know, if we did that, there would always be a republican president.
> -Original Message-
> From: jon hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 4:28 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban
>
> Anyon
cember 06, 2002 3:03 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban)
>
> Even if you did want to overthrow the govt, a piddly assault weapon
would
> be
> pretty useless against the sophistocation of the us military.
However,
> back
&g
Simple, if you own a gun, know how to use it properly.
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 1:20 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban)
>
> so
t; At 12:14 PM 12/6/02 -0500, you wrote:
>>Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban
>>
>>Thu Dec 5,10:36 PM ETAdd U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!
>>
>>By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
>>
>>SAN FRANCISCO(AP) - A federal appeals court unanimously upheld
om: Timothy Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:24 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban)
>
> OK folks. Snap poll:
>
> "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
sta
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:54 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban
Oh, and the city of San Francisco will be the first to fall. The mayor will
be urging compliance with the 'visitors' and hosting several town hall
meetings on how to c
a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
-Original Message-
From: Timothy Heald
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:59 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Poll was(RE: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban)
Yes, it was written over 200 years ago, when militias
as good as unloading a clip of 30 into their torso with an assault
>rifle
>
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Jacob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:32 PM
>Sub
st year, has no legal standing. The ruling conflicts with another federal
appeals court ruling in the 5th Circuit last year that formed the legal
basis for Ashcroft's decision.
At 12:14 PM 12/6/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban
>
>Thu Dec 5,10:36 PM E
torso with an assault
>rifle
>
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Jacob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:32 PM
>Subject: Re: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban
Friday, December 06, 2002 12:15 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban
>
>
>Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban
>
>Thu Dec 5,10:36 PM ETAdd U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!
>
>By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
>
>SAN FR
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
