From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Call off the dogs. was Re:Waiting periods for guns and domestic violenc
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:21:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Jul28.171713.57578@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:
>   In an article earlier today I said that I do not agree with
>the NRA's lobbying for maintaining the legality of automatic
>weapons. I disagree with the NRA doing this. I didn't say they
>did it this year I just said the NRA lobbied to maintain the
>legality of these weapons.

So now you claim that you oppose the NRA because, in the past, we
lobbied to maintain the legality of these weapons?  Why, then, was
your original claim in the present tense?  Let me refresh your memory:

In article <1992Jul28.121332.57554@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:

$   The NRA seeks to keep the AK-47 assault rifle legal to the public.
            ^^^^^
$That is enough for me to know they are misguided. Noone needs an
                                    ^^^
$automatic weapon with that kind of firepower for self defense. Gang
$members however find it an excellent weapon for turf wars.

>   I suggested that the AK-47 was an automatic weapon. And 
>since that article appeared I received five, count them five,
>responses in two hours telling me I was wrong. I meant the AKS
>assault "look-alike" rifle they said. Now I would like you to know that
>there IS an automatic AK-47 and it is a perfectly good example
>of an automatic weapon. So please stop telling me how I have been
>manipulated by the popular media.

Fine...how about providing some evidence for your claim that "Gang
members however find it (the full-auto AK-47) an excellent weapon
for turf wars."  Facts please, not quotes from the media.  After all,
you wouldn't want us to think they've manipulated you. :-)

>   And please don't assume someone doesn't know what they are
>talking about until you do a little investigation. Thank You.

May I suggest you do a little investigation of your own?  In addition
to researching whether gang members are really using AK-47's, perhaps
you should look into the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.  First and
foremost, its goal is to ensure that there will always be an armed
militia.  Personal self-defense is just a fringe benefit.  And, since
it's really the militia we're concerned with, why should civilians
(who are members of the unorganized militia) not have appropriate
arms?  (I.e. military-type weapons.)

>   Finally, to the one poster that wants to know why I have
>the right to say that noone needs an automatic weapon:
>   Because I have the right to an opinion and that's my opinion.

Absolutely!  That's what this country is all about.  But if you support
Big Brother's attempts to chip away at some of our rights today, don't
be too surpised if, tomorrow, you lose your right to an opinion and the
expression thereof.


---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@            *
                                                    _ _ /|      *  *  *
                                Ack Pffft Thwerrp!  \'o.O'       * * *
                                                    =(___)=  * * * O * * *
Roberta Taylor  KB2OOA        | rlt@gummo.att.com      U         * * *
AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany, NJ  |                                 *  *  *
                              | Member, Unorganized Militia of     *
 NRA/CCRKBA/SAF - Life Member |    The People's Republic of        |
   GOA - Annual Member        |          New Jersey              \ |
                                                                  \| /
Would the last American to leave New Jersey please bring the flag? |/
                                                                   |/ 
@----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}   ______|______