KERRY wants to BAN GUNS in AMERICA !!

JOHN KERRY'S 2 decade long U.S. Senate record of opposing SECOND
AMENDMENT rights makes him the most ANTI-GUN candidate in history !!!!
Here is the proof:

FACT: Kerry co-sponosors a bill that would ban all semi-auto shotguns
and detachable magazine semi-auto rifles, a gigantic step towards
over-zealous gun control in the USA. (Nov. 21, 2003)

FACT: Kerry has said: "I THINK YOU OUGHT TO TAX ALL AMMUNITION,
PERSONALLY, I THINK YOU OUGHT TO TAX GUNS" Nov. 7. 1993)

FACT: Kerry has voted NINE TIMES in favor of banning semi-auto
firearms (3 times in 1990, 2 times in 1993, 3 times in 1994, once in
2004)

FACT: Kerry has voted FOR a Ted Kennedy amendment to BAN MOST center
fire rifle ammunition, including the MOST COMMON ROUNDS USED BY
HUNTERS AND TARGET SHOOTERS. (March 2, 2004)

FACT: Kerry has voted to CLOSE OFF hundeds of thousands of acres of
the California Mojave Desert to hunting. (April 12, 1994)

FACT: Kerry has voted to hold the already HIGHLY REGULATED American
firearms industry legally responsible to acts of violent criminals.
(twice in 2004)

FACT: Kerry was 1 of only 18 Senators to oppose the Firearms Owners
Protection Act (July 9, 1985)

FACT: Kerry has voted to allow BATF to conduct unlimited warrantless
Gestapo-like inspections of FFL holders. (July 9, 1985)

FACT: Kerry has voted to CRIMINALIZE legal gun sales between private
parties at gun shows. (in 1999 and 2004)

FACT: Kerry has voted to impose penalties of $10,000 FINE and ONE YEAR
IN PRISON on an adult gun owner, if a juvenile STEALS said adult's
firearm and merely displays it in a public place. (in 1998 and 1999)

FACT: Kerry has voted to force many small gun dealers OUT OF BUSINESS,
which would have impacted the economy and availability of guns, ESP.
IN RURAL AREAS. (July 1993)

FACT: Kerry voted twice to ELIMINATE THE CIVILIAN MARKSMANSHIP PROGRAM
for our youth. (1993 and 1996)

FACT: Kerry wants to silence gun owners' freedom of speech- when NRA
sought the same exemption from campaign refinance rules that NEWS
ORGANIZATIONS have, Kerry called the effort "hijacking America's
airwaves".

FACT: Kerry commended the MILLION MOM MARCH in Washington that
included calls for GUN LICENSING, GUN REGISTRATION, and many other
restrictions on law abiding gun owners.

FACT: If elected president, Kerry will pack the U.S. SUPREME COURT
with Dianne Feistein/Chuck Schumer/Ted Kennedy-selected anti-gun
activists, who believe you HAVE NO RIGHT TO OWN ANY FIREARM.

WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT FROM A KERRY PRESIDENCY:

1- A ban on all semi-auto shotguns, exactly the same type presented to
Kerry recently at a campaign stop.

2- A ban on ammunition, especially center fire rifle ammo.

3- A ban on all semi-automatic rifles.

4- Fewer firearms dealers and that means HIGHER PRICES for guns/ammo.

DEFEND FIREARMS- DEFEAT KERRY- VOTE GEORGE W. BUSH ON NOVEMBER 2

www.nrapvf.org

I don't know about that, but it wouldn't surprise me.

What I DID notice was that in his "goose hunt" (Yeah, right) here in Ohio
today there was no hunting license in sight... Looks to me like he should
be getting a ticket, at the very least!

--

Joe Ellis

trippin28track wrote:

snip

--
Ken Fortenberry

Why do you need a semi or full automatic gun to go hunting ? Are you a
bad shot or just too lazy to reload ?

In article , Svend Tang-Petersen
wrote:

Why do you need a semi or full automatic gun to go hunting ? Are you a
bad shot or just too lazy to reload ?

When was the last time you READ the Second Amendment?

--

Joe Ellis

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:37:35 GMT, (Joe Ellis)
wrote:

In article , Svend Tang-Petersen
wrote:

Why do you need a semi or full automatic gun to go hunting ? Are you a
bad shot or just too lazy to reload ?

When was the last time you READ the Second Amendment?

Actually I just read it today. It said nothing about hunting or even
about individual ownership. I'm all for an amendment that would
guarantee hunters and others the right to own arms. But the 2nd
Amendment is not about that. Its about the need to keep military power
out of the hands of a standing army and in the hands of well regulated
citizen militias. You doubt me? Show me one court case that interprets
the 2nd Amendment as the right of individuals to keep and own firearms
for personal use. I can show you many that say that it doesn't. All
the way up to the Supreme Court. The NRA has let all gun owners down
by not pushing for a Constitutional amendment to guarantee that right
but they'd rather play right-wing-spin-politics than do something
meaningful.


g.c.

In article , George Cleveland
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:37:35 GMT, (Joe Ellis)
wrote:

In article , Svend Tang-Petersen
wrote:

Why do you need a semi or full automatic gun to go hunting ? Are you a
bad shot or just too lazy to reload ?

When was the last time you READ the Second Amendment?

Actually I just read it today. It said nothing about hunting or even
about individual ownership.

Yes and no. True, it does not mention "hunting". It doesn't need to,
because it does not specify the USES of the weapons, and when it says:
"The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", it
makes a very clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous statement specifically
about individual ownership.

I'm all for an amendment that would
guarantee hunters and others the right to own arms. But the 2nd
Amendment is not about that. Its about the need to keep military power
out of the hands of a standing army and in the hands of well regulated
citizen militias. You doubt me? Show me one court case that interprets
the 2nd Amendment as the right of individuals to keep and own firearms
for personal use. I can show you many that say that it doesn't. All
the way up to the Supreme Court. The NRA has let all gun owners down
by not pushing for a Constitutional amendment to guarantee that right
but they'd rather play right-wing-spin-politics than do something
meaningful.

Of course, a reading of the Second Amendment shows those court rulings are
quite simply wrong.

My son is studying "dependant and independant clauses" right now in
English class. The Second Amendment is a classic example, and when
analyzed according to the actual structure, is crystal clear: "The right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't
give ANY exceptions, no room for weasling around. It is quite possibly the
single least ambiguous statement in the entire Constitution. It DOES give
a reason. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State...". The Founding Fathers knew EXACTLY what they were saying.
They were putting enough power in the hands of the People to overthrow the
government - AGAIN - if enough of them found it necessary.

If you were going to a big rock concert and saw a sign outside the arena
that said:

"To keep order in line, and for your safety, everyone will be seated
strictly in the order of arrival, without exception.", there would be no
question about the meaning. The Second Amendment has exactly the same
sentence structure, and is equally clear. It's only the courts that can't
seem to understand plain English.

Of course, I think that anyone that used their weapon against the peace or
others without clear and just cause should also be held strictly and
personally responsible, as well. I don't have any problem at all with
severe penalties for anyone using a gun in a crime. With great freedoms
come great responsibilities.

--

Joe Ellis

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 01:30:40 GMT, (Joe Ellis)
wrote:

In article , George Cleveland
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:37:35 GMT, (Joe Ellis)
wrote:

In article , Svend Tang-Petersen
wrote:

Why do you need a semi or full automatic gun to go hunting ? Are you a
bad shot or just too lazy to reload ?

When was the last time you READ the Second Amendment?

Actually I just read it today. It said nothing about hunting or even
about individual ownership.

Yes and no. True, it does not mention "hunting". It doesn't need to,
because it does not specify the USES of the weapons, and when it says:
"The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", it
makes a very clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous statement specifically
about individual ownership.

I'm sorry, you are just plain wrong. When the writers of the
Constitution wanted to refer to the rights of individuals they used
the word persons. As in Article 5:

" No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation"


I'm all for an amendment that would
guarantee hunters and others the right to own arms. But the 2nd
Amendment is not about that. Its about the need to keep military power
out of the hands of a standing army and in the hands of well regulated
citizen militias. You doubt me? Show me one court case that interprets
the 2nd Amendment as the right of individuals to keep and own firearms
for personal use. I can show you many that say that it doesn't. All
the way up to the Supreme Court. The NRA has let all gun owners down
by not pushing for a Constitutional amendment to guarantee that right
but they'd rather play right-wing-spin-politics than do something
meaningful.

Of course, a reading of the Second Amendment shows those court rulings are
quite simply wrong.

My son is studying "dependant and independant clauses" right now in
English class. The Second Amendment is a classic example, and when
analyzed according to the actual structure, is crystal clear: "The right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't
give ANY exceptions, no room for weasling around. It is quite possibly the
single least ambiguous statement in the entire Constitution. It DOES give
a reason. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State...". The Founding Fathers knew EXACTLY what they were saying.
They were putting enough power in the hands of the People to overthrow the
government - AGAIN - if enough of them found it necessary.

If you were going to a big rock concert and saw a sign outside the arena
that said:

"To keep order in line, and for your safety, everyone will be seated
strictly in the order of arrival, without exception.", there would be no
question about the meaning. The Second Amendment has exactly the same
sentence structure, and is equally clear. It's only the courts that can't
seem to understand plain English.

Of course, I think that anyone that used their weapon against the peace or
others without clear and just cause should also be held strictly and
personally responsible, as well. I don't have any problem at all with
severe penalties for anyone using a gun in a crime. With great freedoms
come great responsibilities.


Again you are missing the point. The 2nd Amendment *is* perfectly
clear. The right of "the people" refers to the people as a collective
entity and every court decision, whether the court in question was
considered conservative or liberal, has agreed with that
interpretation. To state that every court has gotten it wrong and that
the NRA has gotten it right verges on severe denial at the least. And
yes the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is
totally dependent on the preceeding statement "A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". If your son
is getting tutored in English by you, he's in trouble.

Also your statement that the 2nd Amendment was ratified so that the
people could overthrow the government is false. It was formulated as a
defense against against the usurption of power by a Standing Army
acting *independently* of the federal government. In short it was
meant as a defense against a coup d'etat. The Founding Fathers lived
in great fear that the greatest threat to the Republic and to
republics in general was the the Ambitious Officer Class of a Standing
Army. Their fear wasn't so much that the government would oppress the
people as it was an American Julius Ceasar would arise and destroy the
Republic and replace it with a military based dictatorship.

Read your history, not your American Rifleman.

g.c.

In article , George Cleveland
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:37:35 GMT, (Joe Ellis)
wrote:

In article , Svend Tang-Petersen
wrote:

Why do you need a semi or full automatic gun to go hunting ? Are you a
bad shot or just too lazy to reload ?

When was the last time you READ the Second Amendment?

Actually I just read it today. It said nothing about hunting or even
about individual ownership.

Yes and no. True, it does not mention "hunting". It doesn't need to,
because it does not specify the USES of the weapons, and when it says:
"The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", it
makes a very clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous statement specifically
about individual ownership.

I'm all for an amendment that would
guarantee hunters and others the right to own arms. But the 2nd
Amendment is not about that. Its about the need to keep military power
out of the hands of a standing army and in the hands of well regulated
citizen militias. You doubt me? Show me one court case that interprets
the 2nd Amendment as the right of individuals to keep and own firearms
for personal use. I can show you many that say that it doesn't. All
the way up to the Supreme Court. The NRA has let all gun owners down
by not pushing for a Constitutional amendment to guarantee that right
but they'd rather play right-wing-spin-politics than do something
meaningful.

Of course, a reading of the Second Amendment shows those court rulings are
quite simply wrong.

My son is studying "dependant and independant clauses" right now in
English class. The Second Amendment is a classic example, and when
analyzed according to the actual structure, is crystal clear: "The right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't
give ANY exceptions, no room for weasling around. It is quite possibly the
single least ambiguous statement in the entire Constitution. It DOES give
a reason. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State...". The Founding Fathers knew EXACTLY what they were saying.
They were putting enough power in the hands of the People to overthrow the
government - AGAIN - if enough of them found it necessary.

If you were going to a big rock concert and saw a sign outside the arena
that said:

"To keep order in line, and for your safety, everyone will be seated
strictly in the order of arrival, without exception.", there would be no
question about the meaning. The Second Amendment has exactly the same
sentence structure, and is equally clear. It's only the courts that can't
seem to understand plain English.

Of course, I think that anyone that used their weapon against the peace or
others without clear and just cause should also be held strictly and
personally responsible, as well. I don't have any problem at all with
severe penalties for anyone using a gun in a crime. With great freedoms
come great responsibilities.

--

Joe Ellis

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:37:35 GMT, (Joe Ellis)
wrote:

In article , Svend Tang-Petersen
wrote:

Why do you need a semi or full automatic gun to go hunting ? Are you a
bad shot or just too lazy to reload ?

When was the last time you READ the Second Amendment?

Actually I just read it today. It said nothing about hunting or even
about individual ownership. I'm all for an amendment that would
guarantee hunters and others the right to own arms. But the 2nd
Amendment is not about that. Its about the need to keep military power
out of the hands of a standing army and in the hands of well regulated
citizen militias. You doubt me? Show me one court case that interprets
the 2nd Amendment as the right of individuals to keep and own firearms
for personal use. I can show you many that say that it doesn't. All
the way up to the Supreme Court. The NRA has let all gun owners down
by not pushing for a Constitutional amendment to guarantee that right
but they'd rather play right-wing-spin-politics than do something
meaningful.


g.c.