“Kerry is a cosponsor of legislation (S. 1431) that would ban all semi-automatic shotguns in America, including the Remington 11-87 he so proudly displayed at a recent campaign event in West Virginia!”
My local news… in “liberal” Honolulu…
:smack: I think I’m being taken for a ride.
According to the text of the bill, the semi-automatic shotguns that would fall under this ban are
I will freely admit that I know next to nothing about guns, but looking at the 11-87 can you explain how it falls under this description?
So, SnakeSpirit what happens if you manage to successfully use the words “Kerry” and “flip flop” in a sentence more than a certain number of times per month? Are there prizes?
I think you turn into George W. Bush.
So, you and I are tied now with one apiece… wanna go for the gold?
Damn, sweet deal! Lots of vacation time, you get to dress up like a soldier, and whenever you do something wrong you can blame it on the people who complain about it. Wish I had a job like that…
I just figured you got a Republican tote bag or something. It’s all making more sense now.
I scanned the Remington info also, and I don’t know if that kind of a stock can be called a ‘pistol grip,’ (I know some rifles have no curve in their stocks like this one does), and the infor didn’t state the round capacity, and I won’t guess if it can hold more than 5 rounds.
My newspaper didn’t say why it would be banned, but I’m sure Honolulu PD will ban it if they can.
The reporter is “currently unavailable.”
Perhaps I should have titled this one “Kerry Shoots himself in the Foot.” :rolleyes:
It’s not getting harder knowing who to believe, it’s just getting harder finding ANYONE to believe.
I took the picture of the 11-87 and edited the stock ‘cheek piece’ off, and it sure looks like a pistol grip that way.
I tried to post an edited picture, but ran into difficulties.
Save the picture as .BMP and edit it off and you’ll see what I mean.
Depends on what you call a “pistol grip” I guess.
Actually… If you go to GOPTeamLeader.com, you can sign up and report message board conversations. From the site: (registration, unfortuantely, is required)
You can use your GOPoints to receive a prize. For example, a handsome GOP bumper sticker can be yours for only 75 points.
Am I the only one who thinks “flip-flops” sounds like it means he changed his position twice? Changing your opinion from one thing to another could be a “flip.” A “flip-flop” might be “Kerry uses gun, signs bill banning it, then goes and uses it again.”
Oh yeah, and whatever flip-flop means, it doesn’t sound like that’s what he actually did.
This text from the original bill cited above:
Looks like that sews up the 11-87…
Jeez, he co-sponsored that bill! And he’s clueless as to the implications?
Kerry is getting Bushier every day!
Who the F* do I vote for now? Nader? He’s looking smarter by just keeping quiet!
(Note - I think this is heading to GD pretty quickly…)
The bill we’re discussing is the reauthorization / extension of the “assault weapons” ban, isn’t that correct? (Note - many SDMB members, including Snake I believe, do not think that the targeted guns are truly “assault weapons”).
Three points:
Not at all. Everybody thinks like just like you.
I’m sure he just borrowed the shotgun for the rally, unaware that he had banned it. I think that would qualify as a ‘flop’ rather than a ‘flip.’
Like I said earlier - guess you missed it - I should have titled it “Kerry Shoots Himself in the Foot.”
Just in case anyone has the mistaken notion that I’m choosing sides here might want to reference this extensive exposé:
It really puts things in perspective.
Is he keeping quiet, or are you not hearing him?
Hmm. Maybe he really is keeping quiet. Searching Nader’s site, I can’t even find a position on guns, gun control, or anything of the sort! This can’t be a plus either.
Maybe that’s what they call it, but it also has added a whole shitload of other weapons that are by no means ‘assault weapons.’ In anybody’s description.
Click on the link provided by otto earlier, reproduced here for your convenience , and you’ll see the full description is:
Emphasis mine.
Sneaky.
(Oh, and please, Mods, don’t send this to GD, it’s much more FUN here!)
I’m confused too. I’m not seeing the flip-flop. AFAIK, he’s always been for the ban.
I also don’t know why Kerry had a gun, I saw no explanation in the OP and I do not follow links in every single post so if it was mentioned in one I missed it. Was it his own personal gun that he was waving around at some rally for the heck of it or was he hunting or was he displaying the gun as a prop while he talked about the assault weapon ban?
As for Bush, I saw a report on a news channel a couple days ago that Bush had stated that he would sign the renewal if someone puts it in front of him. In other words he’s not going out of his way to sign it, nor will his staff go out of their way to stick it in front of him so unless Mrs. Brady manages to get past the Secret Service guys and stick the bill under his nose he’s not signing it. That’s not exactly a “flip-flop” more of a “there’s nothing in it for me because the N.R.A. contributes more money to my campaign so I am going to avoid the issue”.
In the past, Nader has said that he feels that guns should be as tightly regulated as automobiles.
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Gun_Control.htm
When asked about whether he supported the assault weapons ban in 2000, Bush quite clearly refused to say yes or no. So he hasn’t waffled, because he’s every bit as indecisive now as he was back then. A pillar of steadfast principle, really.
And add me to the list of folks who are puzzled about why this thread wasn’t started in GD, which is clearly the correct forum. Are the political wankers not going to be satisfied until they’ve turned all nine forums exclusively into lists of insult-hurling matches related to the presidential election, and all threads about enjoyable subjects are buried under 43 skajillion pages of whining and bitching about why {Bush, Kerry} is the worst human bieng on the planet?
Awfully nice of you to reproduce the link, but I’d already had a look at it and at the original 1994 Act. The “and for other purposes” text is standard legislative language. Maybe there are significant changes on other types of gun, but the 1994 Act and the current bill are very similar on the particular topic of this thread - semi-automatic shotguns such as Kerry’s Remington.
Apart from an alteration to remove meaningless language such as “protrudes conspiciously” (how many cm equates to conspicious protrusion, exactly?), the main change is in how many of the assault weapon characteristics must be possessed by a shotgun. The Act stipulates at least 2, but the bill can be read to require either 1 or 3 - it’s unclear.
What do you think of my questions in my earlier post? Why do you think this gun will now be banned under similar legislation if it wasn’t banned before? Where’s the change in Kerry’s position?
Kerry co-sponsored the bill that would have EXPANDED the AWB. It has not passed. He was given that particular shotgun by a union in Racine, WV, on Labor Day, and stated upon receiving it “I thank you for the gift, but I can’t take it to the debate with me.” His Bill would have banned “gift guns”, which this was.
If he is such a gun enthusiast, why is he firing a shotgun for a photo-op with ear or eye protection? Remington President Tommy Milner said, “Rest assured, Remington was neither aware of this presentation in advance nor in any way supportive of its intent to support Senator Kerry’s candidacy. In fact, the company remains amused by ongoing photos of Senator Kerry shooting without either ear or eye protection while discharging a firearm.”
As for the reason people are saying it would have been banned in the first place is the loose wording of the “semi-automatic shotgun that has… a pistol grip” and the opponents of the bill stating that the rear hand grip area of the stock could be called a pistol grip.
Oh, and Atticus Finch, when the language of the law is altered from
to
then this pistol grip no longer has to fit even the weakly worded “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon”, it can be interpreted without that qualifier, and could, arguably, include this shotgun.