Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like grenades are so difficult to make. Any foundry capable of sand casting iron has the ability to make hundreds, if not thousands, a week. It dosen't take much higher technology to make an AK-47. Just ask the gun makers near the Khyber Pass.
Looks like political survival trumps political correctness. Imagine a Republic at work.
I believe this was an attempt to see the people's reaction to the idea...
I think Obama and his party still favor restricting our 2nd Amendment rights but will perhaps wait for a better time...maybe when we are all in the breadlines waiting for our government handouts.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues. TheHill.com - Pelosi throws cold water on weapons ban
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues. TheHill.com - Pelosi throws cold water on weapons ban
And at this point we all KNOW who wears the pants and is boss in this "family" or administration if you like... Hmmm, no more ban from Pelosi of all people. Interesting...
And at this point we all KNOW who wears the pants and is boss in this "family" or administration if you like... Hmmm, no more ban from Pelosi of all people. Interesting...
yep, even after clapping herself silly like some demented plasticized jack-in-the-box the other night, ol' nanster is sharp enough to know how dumb going this route would be.
another surprise-
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault-weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration.
Don Surber » Blog Archive » Gun ban? What gun ban? (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/02/27/gun-ban-what-gun-ban/ - broken link)
Holder - A nation of cowards when it comes to race.
Obama - We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project
Reality - At the same time he is calling for no earmarks. Obama is too much of a coward to stand up to the earmarks. Why? It was that way when I got here ... maybe next time. So why is America considered a coward on race and he isn't considered a coward on earmarks? I mean both are skirting the issue because of the status quo supposedly.
yep, even after clapping herself silly like some demented plasticized jack-in-the-box the other night, ol' nanster is sharp enough to know how dumb going this route would be.
another surprise-
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault-weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration.
Don Surber » Blog Archive » Gun ban? What gun ban? (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/02/27/gun-ban-what-gun-ban/ - broken link)
So I was at the sports store last night (sshhh, don't tell anyone but I was in the gun dept) anyway, everyone was standing around discussing this developement and I postulated that while the Pelosi gang is saying they won't revive the old ban does it mean no ban or does it mean they won't come up with a new one?
We've been seeing double speak out of D.C. for a while now and they're starting to get a track record of telling us they're not doing something (which is technically true) but then slide something new but the same by with the other hand.
Just something everyone thought might be going on, we'll have to wait and see...
I have a simple solution to the assault weapons problem. Anyone who has a weapon that could kill large numbers of people should be given the label of terrorist and be treated as a potential enemy combatant. This person would be subject to surveyence, put on the no fly list, put on Interpol's list of known terrorists and be subject to detention at the Presidents disgression. No charges would be needed nor any hearing. After all isn't this what the United States has come to stand for.
A car could become "a weapon that could kill large numbers of people." Do you own a car? Do you have knives in your kitchen? Do you have a can of gas in your garage or shed, along with a book or box of matches? Any of these, and a whole lot of other things could be used to kill large numbers of people. You could be the first one on the list.
Last edited by jdavid93225; 02-28-2009 at 08:30 AM..
Reason: Spelling error correction
Is this a problem? What kind of civilian needs an assault weapon? That's just crazy.
Well drug dealers and human smugglers need those Uzis and AK47s to blast our law enforcement officers, for one. Isn't that a 'noble cause'?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmmm, no more ban from Pelosi of all people.
Interesting...
Newt made a good point....
... maybe next time. So why is America considered a coward on race and he isn't considered a coward on earmarks? I mean both are skirting the issue because of the status quo supposedly. 
