[Vision2020] obama election / gun purchases

[Tom Hansen]

Exactly, Chas.

The emphasis has NOT been on the cosmetic appearance of a rifle as much as 
its semi-automatic capability and the ease to convert such a weapon to 
full automatic.

Admit it, people.  You don't need an AK-47 to go rabbit hunting . . . or 
deer/elk hunting (for that matter) if you intend to eat what meat remains 
after the kill.

As far as home protection is concerned, a shotgun is far more intimidating 
than a rifle, and the firer has only got to get close to the target to 
neutralize it.

But, my two cents will not necessarily change people's attitudes or (most 
certainly) any laws.  Guys will continue to procure assault-intended semi-
automatic weapons and and hop into their massive all-wheel drive SUVs (the 
ones with the floor boards five feet off the ground).  Maybe its a rite of 
passage or maybe they are simply . . .

"Over-Compensating"
http://www.tomandrodna.com/Songs/Hummer.mp3
 
Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho


> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 20:26, Mike Finkbiner <mike_l_f at hotmail.com> 
wrote:
> 
> > In other words, banning a category of weapons which are only 
cosmetically
> > different than common hunting rifles, and no more lethal than common
> > shotguns seems like a cynical first step towards - what?  There is no
> > evidence it's for crime control.
> 
> Only cosmetically different?  It was my understanding that a gun which
> is "single-action" (or whatever you call it) requires chambering(?)
> between every shot, whereas a semi-automatic requires just the pull of
> the trigger.
> 
> In an O.K. Corral situation, who would get off more shots, assuming
> equal competence?
> 
>
Chas

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/