Nice Article In Laconia Citizen

[The Village Idiot]

Although it was in yesterday's paper it is a good read:

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080707/GJNEWS02/521604323/-1/CITIZEN

 

[Fsorrent]

He's probably right. The cost of liberty is constant vigilance. If that flame burns out, then the other side will win, and everyone will suffer.

 

[doobie]

"I honestly believe in the next 20 years none of us will be able to own firearms," he said.

I sure hope he is wrong.

 

[GM Muscle]

Although it was in yesterday's paper it is a good read:

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080707/GJNEWS02/521604323/-1/CITIZEN

I would to thank you for posting that link. I did not notice that article on the Citizen website. All in all I think it was a good article.

However, as a resident of Laconia it really erks me that one of our represenatives would make an ignorant blanket statement like she did. Apparently myself and, many other firearm enthusiasts in the area are automatically considered criminals in her eyes since legitimate citizens have no need for assault rifles.

I will be sending an email to Mrs. Wood in an attempt to enlighten her. If there are any other lurkers here from Laconia like myself, I would like to urge you to do the same.


Andrew

 

[doobie]

"I just cannot imagine why a legitimate citizen would need an assault weapon," said Rep. Jane Wood, D-Laconia.

I cannot imagine any reason why someone would want a sports car. They can be driven well beyond the legal speed limit. Guzzle gas like no one can believe and require higher payments for insurance due to increase cost and dangerousness.

 

[GM Muscle]

I can't imagine why any legitimate 63 year old lady would need a 4,700sqft 5 bedroom oil burning home.

Here's the biggest shocker. She was a Hillary supporter, http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1399 .

Edit: Lol, please don't ban me for posting a link to that god aweful site.

 

[jhblaze1]

I sure hope he is wrong.

He IS wrong because I ain't giving mine up. I might not be allowed to own firearms, but I'll be able to....

 

[BOBKATT]

One good reason to own an "Assault Rifle" is incase someone tries to take them away.

 

[jcr]

Nice article but full of errors

The limited national inventory of such guns is partly the result of an assault weapons ban set in 2004.

sunset? Even if there was a shortage of "after ban" guns, they've had 4 years to resupply now.

there was a stop on the importation of the guns due to complications with the international relations with manufacturing countries.

The only complication was an Executive Order (Bush41, I believe), and the ATF "sporting purpose" crap.

before the 1990s, during the Clinton administration

Could this be more awkward?

Though the Brady Bill was eventually repealed, after 10 years of existence,

Who knew!? Actually, it was the "Assault Weapons Ban" that sunset, not repealed, after 10 years. If only we could get any gun law repealed.

still remain mandatory background checks and other precautions outlined in the early legislation.

That would be the Brady Bill which you just incorrectly said was repealsed.

are concerned about a possible reinstatement of the Brady Bill

Tough to do, as it still is in effect.

Even with the individual's rights being solidified in District of Columbia v. Keller

50% error rate on naming the court case.

----

Imagine if I decided to nitpick?