[CS-FSLUG] PD: They have started already... HR6257 To Reauthorize the Assault Weapon Ban

[Tina Gasperson]

Probably a more accurate statement would be "the liberals are at it
again," since liberalism has indeed infiltrated the Republican party
(hence the party nominee this time). No true conservative is going to
introduce or support legislation that diminishes our 2nd amendment
rights.

On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 6:36 PM, David McGlone <d.mcglone at att.net> wrote:
> On Sunday 09 November 2008 4:08:18 pm Fred A. Miller wrote:
>> David McGlone wrote:
>> > On Sunday 09 November 2008 10:22:36 am Fred A. Miller wrote:
>> >> Tina Gasperson wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 4:28 PM, David McGlone <d.mcglone at att.net> wrote:
>> >>>> Who in the world would need an AK-47 other than the military anyhow?
>> >>>
>> >>> I recently came to a realization about this whole 2nd amendment thing:
>> >>> it is precisely because the military has these things that it is vital
>> >>> that citizens are legally permitted to have them as well. It may sound
>> >>> "out there" at this point in time to think that the military would
>> >>> ever overtake the citizenry, but it is certainly not out of the
>> >>> question if things ever head in that direction. That, I believe, is
>> >>> the point of the 2nd amendment.
>> >>
>> >> You are very close! Simply, the reason that NOBama, Kennedy, Biden, and
>> >> ALL other liberals don't want the public armed is that if your desire is
>> >> to be a slave master, you don't want those slaves able to shoot back!
>> >> Liberals can't use the ignorant excuse that all they want to do is save
>> >> lives because ALL the evidence, including stats from the FBI PROVE just
>> >> the opposite - gun control of any flavor DOESN'T work.
>> >
>> > Here's what agitates me,
>> >
>> > To me this is not about gun control, this is about placing blame for gun
>> > control squarely on the Democrats. In your original post, you said "The
>> > Democrats have already started",
>> >
>> > If you go back in  history to 1934 When Roosevelt was president,  and
>> > Democrats had majority, the national firearms act of 1934 was largely
>> > enacted to try and help keep firearms out of mobsters hands. Did
>> > Roosevelt and congress have bad intentions? I don't think so.
>> >
>> > Then in 1938 The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 put limitations on selling
>> > firearms. The limitations were prohibiting selling firearms to criminals.
>> > Is this a bad thing? I don't think so.
>> >
>> > Then in 1968 under President Johnson the "Gun control act of 1968" was
>> > enacted to try and keep guns out of criminals hands, kids hands and
>> > people who were incompetent. Were there bad intentions? I don't think so.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> I snipped as it's not important.
>
> Yes it is important. The important thing here is, Your placing blame in the
> wrong place
>
>> NO gun control works.... period!
>
> I wouldn't know, but that is beside the fact you are blaming this one on the
> democrats, when it clearly states on the bill that it was proposed and co-
> sponsored by Republicans.
>
>> I don't care what party proposes it. For sometime, it's been mostly demos.
>>that have done just that and currently it's almost 100% push from demos,
>> including our new Marxist Pres.
>
> This is completely untrue. It was Mark Kirk's idea to introduce this bill.
> That is the bottom line of it, Whether it passes or not, point is a Republican
> introduced it. This makes your statement "The Democrats are at it again" moot.
>
> --
> David M.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ChristianSource FSLUG mailing list
> Christiansource at ofb.biz
> http://cs.uninetsolutions.com
>



-- 
Open source business
gasperson.com

tina
tina.gasperson.com

Silver and copper wirework jewelry
tinahdee.etsy.com