"Asked if he was a gun owner and, if so, what was his favorite gun, the man from Massachusetts said, “My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam. I don’t own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle.”
An assault rifle? Egads! So what is Mr. Kerry’s philosophy, exactly? Outlaw guns, so only lawmakers can have them?"
This is the same Kerry who: 'charged in a speech on Sept. 10 that “America’s streets will not be safe because of a choice George Bush is making” and that “in the al-Qaida manual on terror, they were telling people to go out and buy assault weapons, to come to America and buy assault weapons.” ’
But Wait a minute?!?
George W. said that if the bill crossed his desk, he would sign it!
And Kerry has been saying that Bush was stupid? What’s going on???
Isn’t it possible that a reasonable person could approve of assault rifles in the hands of soldiers in a war zone, but disapprove of civilians using them in the inner cities ? I know, it can’t be stated as neatly as “pro assault rifles”. But I’d hoped we weren’t yet at the point where any viewpoint more nuanced than a t-shirt slogan can be brushed off as waffling.
Well, I won’t try to tell you what the OP meant to say, but the AWB was bullshit to begin with since any of my “legal” guns could kill a person just as easily as a “banned” accessory.
Whether my M-1 had a bayonet lug, folding stock or flash-supressor is irrelevant to what the actual hollow-point bullet does to a person.
The AWB is nothing more than a campaign phrase designed to ignite the passions of the base. It’s certainly not for making a case against some weapons. This has been thoroughly debunked on these very boards.
It didn’t violate the 1994 ban, but there was some question about where it would fall under a new bill Kerry co-sponsored, mostly because the new bill is so poorly worded* that it could be interpreted as a ban on all semi-automatic shotguns.
The big problem with it was that under current firearm transfer laws it was illegal for him to accept it as a gift because that would be a private interstate transfer, so he gave it back.
*Specifically, the definition of “pistol grip” is so vague that it could possibly apply to any grip type at all.
No, dummy. If it was “full auto”, it would NOT be an assault rifle. Officially, under federal legislation, it would be a “machine gun”. An assault rifle is a semi-automatic rifle, not a “full auto” or select-fire weapon.
Christ. Ignorance abounds when guns come into the conversation.
Don’t forget, politicos frequently abuse the public confusion over the difference between “assault rifles” and “assault weapons” in order to gain votes.
If it’s a Chi-Com AK-47, then he probably picked it up in Vietnam. It was legal to bring back souvenirs of this type if the barrel was leaded and the weapon was inoperative. The same applied to grenades that had been defused. This could be the case here. Without ALL the facts, your little tirade is meaningless. Are you a member of the Swift Boat Liars?
Wrong again. A select-fire weapon that will go from semi-auto to full auto(my understanding of legal definition of “select fire”), is illegal under the Federal Machine Gun ban. It is not, for all intents and purposes, known as an assault weapon, which are semi-auto or single round only.