Saf: Does Kerry Own Assault Rifle?


PDA






Harry Tuttle
September 16, 2004, 08:00 PM
DOES KERRY OWN ASSAULT RIFLE?
IF SO, WHERE IS IT, SAF ASKS
Does Sen. John Kerry, a supporter of the so-called "assault weapons" ban, own a "Communist Chinese assault rifle," as suggested by his remarks in the October issue of Outdoor Life?

If so, the Second Amendment Foundation wants to know where Kerry keeps that rifle, if it is legally registered, and how the senator got it into the United States, SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb said today.

"Senator Kerry's own words once again trip him up in an apparent hypocrisy," Gottlieb stated. "Responding to a question from Outdoor Life about whether he is a gun owner, and if so, what's his favorite gun, Kerry strongly intimates he has an assault rifle, which is illegal to own both in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C."

The Kerry quote appears on Page 82 of the October issue of Outdoor Life. In that comment, the senator states, "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."

"Here's another example of Kerry running on his Vietnam service history," Gottlieb observed, "which has become a major campaign issue, for the wrong reasons. Now he's talking as if he's got an assault rifle stashed somewhere, while he's been railing against their ownership by other law-abiding American citizens.

"Senator Kerry," Gottlieb demanded, "where's the rifle? In which one of your mansions are you hiding that gun? Why should it be okay for you to have a Communist Chinese assault rifle when you think nobody else should have one? And if you don't have one, why would you intimate to Outdoor Life that you do?

"Senator," Gottlieb continued, "you told a crowd in St. Louis on Sept. 10 that, ‘As a hunter, I have never ever thought about going hunting with an AK-47 or an Uzi or anything else'. So, then why would a Communist Chinese assault rifle be your favorite gun?

"Whether he is lying about owning the gun, or just being a hypocrite," Gottlieb concluded, "this remark is just more proof that Senator Kerry is full of crap."

The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers & an amicus brief & fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

If you enjoyed reading about "Saf: Does Kerry Own Assault Rifle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ZeroX
September 16, 2004, 08:20 PM
Hypocrisy? From Kerry? JOHN Kerry?! :what:

ReadyontheRight
September 16, 2004, 09:27 PM
"King" John gets to own whatever he wants. Don't you know us rabble can't be trusted?

Daemon688
September 16, 2004, 09:49 PM
Even though I hate John Kerry, I'm always skeptical of false news. Where are the sources regarding what John Kerry said about owning a chinese assault rifle? Is this actually a news article?

Kim
September 16, 2004, 10:31 PM
I read excerpts from an article that is going to be in Outdoor life where there is an interview with Bush and Kerry on another web site but I don't remember whre.

kentucky bucky
September 16, 2004, 10:45 PM
That 1187 shotgun that he held up in West Virginia is an "Assault Weapon" by his own definition in a bill he co-signed.:fire:

Harry Tuttle
September 16, 2004, 11:01 PM
http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/news/article/0,19912,696240,00.html

Bush Vs. Kerry
An exclusive interview with the two presidential candidates on gun rights, conservation and other issues that affect your hunting and fishing.
By The Editors

In many respects it is difficult to imagine two candidates less alike than President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry. Even geographically, the contrast between their respective hometowns—the hardscrabble environs of Midland, Tex., and the historical elegance of Boston, Mass.—is extreme. Politically as well, the two candidates have different views on a host of issues. But when it comes to the sportsmen’s vote, these two men want your support and they want it badly. Here, in their own words, Bush and Kerry, both self-described sportsmen, answer key questions on gun rights, conservation, public-land access and other issues that will affect your ability to fish and hunt and enjoy the outdoor traditions you hold so dear.

Outdoor Life: Why should a voter who is interested in hunting and/or fishing issues vote for you?

George Bush: As a fisherman and hunter, I am committed to protecting our water and public lands so that future generations will be able to enjoy our environment. I have also taken a firm stand to protect the rights of responsible gun owners, and will ensure maintenance of and continued access to our public lands so men and women who hunt and fish can participate in recreational activities. In fact, under my direction, the federal government opened over 50 of our nation’s wildlife refuges to hunting. This policy decision opens up recreational opportunities to millions of Americans. In 2003 the Justice Department prosecuted over 13,000 offenders for federal firearms crimes, the highest figure on record for a single year. My record on these issues is clear.

John Kerry: As a lifelong hunter and fisherman, I am proud to be among the millions of American sportsmen and sportswomen who are dedicated to conserving fish and wildlife and passing along the American hunting and fishing traditions to the next generation.

When I was growing up, hunting and fishing taught me about the importance of clean water, abundant fish and wildlife habitat and sound natural resource management. I also have become increasingly aware that we need to take greater steps to ensure that the public always has access to places to hunt and fish. Finally, it does not do much good to have well-managed and abundant wildlife and great places to hunt if you can’t own and use a rifle or a shotgun.

During my time in public service, I have always supported all the elements necessary for successful hunting and fishing. As President, I will continue to support funding for federal and state fish-and-game managers, seek ways to expand access to places for the public to hunt and fish, and protect the rights of law-biding Americans to buy and use rifles and shotguns, so that the future of hunting and fishing in America is assured.

OL: Do you support a renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, a bill that outlawed certain models of semi-automatic firearms? Why or why not?

Bush: The best way to reduce gun crime is to vigorously enforce existing gun laws, so that guns are kept out of the hands of criminals but are not denied to responsible and law-abiding citizens. I support reauthorization of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, but I oppose additions to or expansion of the ban.

My administration has proven that enforcing existing gun laws is a highly effective strategy of combating violent crime. My administration has devoted over $1 billion, since 2001, to Project Safe Neighborhoods, my initiative for enforcing existing gun laws, and has succeeded in increasing the rate of gun crime prosecutions by 68 percent during the last three years. At the same time, the violent crime victimization rate has dropped by 21 percent.

Kerry: Yes, I support extending the assault weapons ban. The weapons that are the subject of this ban are not used for hunting, and extending this ban will not infringe on the rights of any Americans to hunt, including those who hunt with semi-automatic shotguns. It will, however, help police deal with the violence that we are witnessing in too many American cities. Today, one in five law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty is killed with an assault weapon. Innocent citizens continue to be caught in automatic weapon crossfire on city streets. Simply put, I stand with the police officers who have called for extending the ban. Police officers who put their lives on the line every day should not be outgunned by the criminals they are seeking to stop.

OL: In your view, does the Second Amendment protect the individual’s right to own firearms? Why or why not?

Bush: I firmly believe in the right of an individual to bear arms, as granted by the Second Amendment. My administration filed a brief in the Supreme Court asserting that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms and is not limited to protecting state militias.

Noted in a recent court decision, “the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.” This same conclusion has been reaffirmed by numerous legal scholars from across the ideological spectrum.

Kerry: Yes. As a hunter and a gun owner, I believe that law-abiding American adults have the right to own firearms. As President, I will defend the Second Amendment right of law-abiding American adults to own firearms.

OL: Do you think firearms manufacturers should be responsible for the criminal misuse of their products?

Bush: I do not believe that manufacturers or distributors of legal and non-defective products should be held liable for the criminal or unlawful misuse of their product by others. If we hold entire industries responsible for the illegal actions of a few, we risk the confidence of Americans in our laws and we diminish our basic constitutional liberties. Unnecessary lawsuits are also an abuse of the legal system. They set a poor precedent for other lawful industries, cost millions of taxpayer dollars in legal fees, and result in job loss and burdens to interstate and foreign commerce.

My administration strongly supported the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which would have prevented frivolous litigation against gun manufacturers and protected the thousands of workers employed by gun manufacturers and in related businesses. This legislation struck a good balance, reducing frivolous lawsuits while carefully preserving the right of individuals to have their day in court with civil liability actions. The Senate failed to pass this bill, but I will continue to support this legislation in the future.

Kerry: In cases where firearms are criminally misused, the blame should be placed on the person perpetrating the crime. However, in the few cases where it is clear that a gun dealer is consistently selling guns to criminals, gun manufacturers should exercise common sense and stop supplying those dealers. For example, 1.2 percent of licensed gun dealers supply 57 percent of the firearms recovered from criminals. In such cases, if a gun manufacturer knows that this dealer is supplying criminals and yet continues to sell guns to the dealer, then it is fair to hold the manufacturer accountable for this behavior, which is endangering public safety.

OL: Are you in favor of the Freedom to Fish Act, a bill that would prevent agencies from closing waters to fishermen unless state or federal fisheries biologists find it to be necessary? Why or why not?

Bush: My administration has not taken a position on that particular bill, but I strongly support continued access for recreational fishers, and my administration will work with this Congress to protect this appropriate access. Recreational fishers support thousands of American jobs and generate millions of dollars that go directly back to protecting and conserving resources at the local level. We must also protect and maintain those resources for future generations.

Kerry: I support many of the concepts in the Freedom to Fish Act, but I think it is too restrictive in some respects. The decision to close parts of the ocean to fishing has economic and recreational implications and should not be limited only to the views of state and federal biologists. Recreational fishermen and the general public should have a say in these decisions as well.

In general, I do not support closing waters to fishermen unless such closures would lead to overall improvements in the health of the fishery and thus expand long-term opportunities for fishermen to practice their sport. It is clear that some stocks have been over-fished and need help. Closures are one tool that should be available to fishery managers. In my view, however, this tool should be used rarely, since it necessarily shuts out the public for some length of time. Closures also should be limited in size to the minimum area necessary to achieve the fishery management goal. These areas should be constantly monitored to determine if and when fishing access can be restored. The overall goal of closures should be to provide the best long-term experience possible for the fisherman.

OL: Do you believe that hunting is a viable and practical means of managing wildlife populations?

Bush: Yes. Hunting is one of several viable and practicable means of managing wildlife. For example, resident Canada goose populations have caused millions of dollars in damage to habitats, crops and vegetation. Many states have addressed these issues through special hunting seasons for various wildlife populations, and I support the rights of states to make the decisions that best meet their needs.

Kerry: Hunting is a very viable and practical means of controlling wildlife populations. It is used extensively by professional wildlife managers in state game-and-fish agencies to achieve ideal population levels and minimize human-wildlife conflicts. It is one of the main reasons why the decline in active hunters is so troubling.

OL: Do you hunt?

Bush: I do hunt and I enjoy it very much. In fact, I spent New Year’s Day hunting quail with my dad, some friends and cabinet members in southern Texas.

Kerry: Yes. I started hunting and shooting with my family when I was 12 years old. It taught me responsibility and respect for the outdoors. As President I will make conservation of the outdoors and preservation of hunters’ rights a priority so that another generation of Americans can pass on these values to their children and grandchildren.

OL: Do you fish?

Bush: My father passed on his love of fishing to me, and I have passed it along to my own daughters. We have a pond on my ranch in Crawford, and on an April fishing trip, I caught the biggest fish of the day—a 4-pound bass. I like to let the big ones go, and keep the smaller ones for eating.

Kerry: Yes. I have fished all my life. As with hunting, it is a great way for me to relax and enjoy the outdoors.

OL: Are you a gun owner? If so, what is your favorite gun?

Bush: Yes. My favorite gun is a Weatherby, Athena 20-gauge (over/under).

Kerry: 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.

OL: Are public lands too open or not open enough to energy development? Should some areas of the West be completely off-limits to development?

Bush: Federal lands and offshore areas supply about one-third of the resources needed for domestic oil and gas production. Most of the natural gas used in the United States is domestically produced. Therefore it is important that we balance the nation’s energy needs with protecting the environment. As part of my national energy policy, I am promoting dependable, affordable energy while maintaining environmental protections for sensitive areas.

As part of my commitment to protecting public lands, I made a promise to provide $4.9 billion over five years to reduce the longstanding maintenance backlog at our national parks. I have requested $3.9 billion to date, putting the federal government on track to fulfilling my commitment. This year, the National Park Service operations budget has more funds per employee, per acre and per visitor than at any time in history. I also recommended designation of a new, 1.4-million-acre wilderness area in the Chugach National Forest in Alaska. This is the first wilderness recommendation in more than a decade, and the largest single executive branch recommendation for wilderness on National Forest System lands in several decades.

Additionally, I am implementing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. This legislation, which I signed into law in December 2003, is based on sound science and helps further my pledge to care for America’s forests and rangelands, reduce the risk of catastrophic fire to communities, help save the lives of firefighters and citizens, and protect threatened and endangered species.

Kerry: While we should develop natural gas and oil reserves in the United States, we need to do it in a way that does not put fish and wildlife in harm’s way. Today, roughly 90 percent of the federal lands in the West are available to energy development and the federal agencies in charge are not effectively protecting our fish and wildlife resources. The federal government currently is leasing federal lands and issuing drilling permits under resource management plans (RMPs) that are decades old. In many places hunters, anglers, ranchers and local businesses are upset at the way these lands are being managed.

Instead, before we lease more lands and permit more drilling, the RMPs should be revised so that we have up-to-date information about the habitat needs of fish and wildlife and determine which federal lands should be off-limits. Only then should we permit energy development in areas and under conditions that will not be harmful. When lands are developed for energy, we should require that companies monitor the impacts of their operations and restore the lands to their original state. When I am President, federal land management agencies will take seriously their multiple-use mandate and ensure that fish and wildlife resources are not sacrificed to irresponsible drilling.

OL: Do you feel that the Clean Water Act should maintain a policy of “no net loss” of wetlands? Are there other measures that need to be taken to clarify current confusion concerning what should or should not be protected? If so, what are they?

Bush: In 2002 I reaffirmed our national goal of “no net loss” of wetlands, and recent figures released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that, for the first time in history, America has reversed the annual net loss of wetlands on our farms.

So I am leading this nation toward a new wetlands goal. On Earth Day I announced an aggressive new policy for an overall increase of wetlands in America each year. My goal is to create, improve and protect at least 3 million acres of wetlands over the next five years in order to increase overall wetland acreage and quality. To meet this goal, I have called on Congress to pass my FY 2005 budget request, which includes $4.4 billion for conservation programs including funding for wetlands projects—an increase of $1.5 billion (53 percent) over FY 2001. The FY 2005 budget proposes to spend $349 million on our two key wetlands programs—the Wetlands Reserve program and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act grants program—an increase of more than 50 percent over FY 2001 for those two programs.

Kerry: For years, we have had a well-meaning policy of no net loss of wetlands. And yet, at the same time, we are losing tens of thousands of acres of wetlands in this country every year. This threatens water quality as well as the future of waterfowl hunting. Clearly, the policy has not proven to be effective and it’s time hunters and others who care about wetlands take greater strides to reverse this trend.

The Clean Water Act not only should be amended to establish clearer protection for so-called isolated wetlands, but should include meaningful programs to restore much of the acreage that we already have lost. Similarly, we should fully fund the North American Wetlands Conservation Act for wetlands protection and restoration. We also should expand the Conservation Security Program and Wetlands Reserve Program of the Farm Bill to provide greater incentives to farmers and ranchers, so that they conserve these resources without facing financial hardship.

As President, I will require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop and implement a comprehensive plan to reverse current trends and restore hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands that have been lost over the last few decades. Among the elements of that plan will be the rewriting of the wetlands guidance that was issued last year to U.S. EPA and Corps of Engineers field staff that has made it harder to protect these resources.

OL: What would you do to endorse a bill that stipulated there could be no net loss of sportsmen’s access to public lands?

Bush: I strongly support policies that promote access for sportsmen. I am open to working with Congress to pass legislation that guarantees no net loss of access but at the same time ensures strong protections for our environment and natural resources.

Kerry: Maintaining access to places to hunt and fish is a critical challenge all of us face. Not only do I think that we should establish a federal policy of no net loss of sportsmen’s access to public lands, we should seek ways to expand access for sportsmen to both public and private lands. Among the ways that we should increase access are expanding and better funding the National Wildlife Refuge System, and enacting legislation, like the Open Fields bill that I have cosponsored in the U.S. Senate, which provides $50 million per year to state game-and-fish agencies to fund voluntary private-lands-access programs. A number of Midwestern states have such programs today, working with private landowners to open millions of acres to the hunting and fishing public. We should provide states with the resources to open tens of millions more acres for this purpose.

OL: What is the greatest day you ever had in the field?

Bush: My greatest day in the field was my last day in the field. This past year, my father and I hunted quail in Beeville, Tex. It was a great opportunity to spend some quality time with my dad and we stirred up several good covies.

Kerry: The greatest day I ever had in the field was in South Carolina hunting with my cousins; though last year bagging two pheasants with two shots on my first hunt in Iowa was also a good day.

Article URL: http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/news/article/0,19912,696240,00.html

Sylvilagus Aquaticus
September 17, 2004, 12:16 AM
Har.

Emails sent. Questions will be asked by persons who have the means to investigate.

Thanks for getting this out early, Harry.

Regards,
Rabbit.

Man, I'm glad I have friends in low places.

BTR
September 17, 2004, 10:39 AM
SKS maybe? Those were legal to bring back, right?

BeLikeTrey
September 17, 2004, 11:09 AM
I really like the concise straight forward sounding answers Bush gives. He says THIS and THAT have been done. Precise examples.

Kerry is vague and keeps trying to blend in. Never about what HE has legislated. It's just "I will do SOMETHING to keep national parks open to fishing"-(how exactly there MR Kerry?). Why does he never seem to have a plan or have anything concrete to offer? Sheesh he talks about Bush not having an Iraq plan. This guy hasn't said how he proposes to do anything.First we need more troops then we need to get them out... I personally have no Idea how and intelligent human can buy this guy's pie in the sky promises with no plans to back his promises. (not to mention no record to back it either)

jefnvk
September 17, 2004, 11:22 AM
SKS maybe? Those were legal to bring back, right?

Are they legal in MA?

It is also possible that he had it made unfireable, then I believe it is legal anywhere.

My administration has proven that enforcing existing gun laws is a highly effective strategy of combating violent crime. My administration has devoted over $1 billion, since 2001, to Project Safe Neighborhoods, my initiative for enforcing existing gun laws, and has succeeded in increasing the rate of gun crime prosecutions by 68 percent during the last three years.

Bush: I firmly believe in the right of an individual to bear arms, as granted by the Second Amendment. My administration filed a brief in the Supreme Court asserting that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms and is not limited to protecting state militias.

Noted in a recent court decision, “the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.” This same conclusion has been reaffirmed by numerous legal scholars from across the ideological spectrum.


Enforcing current laws and making it known that the 2A is a personal right is all I need to know to vote Bush in November. And they let the AWB lapse.

Leatherneck
September 17, 2004, 12:44 PM
By the time Kerry was in Vietnam, all the services had prohbitions against bringing back VN (read: Chicom or Soviet) weapons without jumping through a bunch of hoops. SKSs were not that desirable; AK-47s were, and they were dirt-cheap. Trade a grunt who had several of them a bottle of booze and the AK was yours. AKs were never approved as war souveniers.

So:
-illegal to bring out of theater
-illegal to have in CONUS (full-auto)
-later illegal in MA, as well as DC, even semi-auto (rare).

Some aggressive reporter could skin him alive on this.

TC
TFL Survivor

patentmike
September 17, 2004, 02:20 PM
I understand that the length of time to do the paper work to bring back an SKS would have taken about 9 months. - More than twice as long as Kerry spent in Viet Nam and Cambodia combined

noonanda
September 17, 2004, 02:36 PM
I need to remember this post when they open up the posting on the AWB on the john kerry website again

Deavis
September 17, 2004, 04:50 PM
Even though I hate John Kerry, I'm always skeptical of false news.

The SFA and Gottlieb are not some fly by night organization that puts out crap to sound good, i.e. they are not the VPC. I've heard him speak and read some of his "works." He isn't LaPierre but he isn't some hack either.

Harry Tuttle
September 17, 2004, 04:53 PM
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005632

DE GUSTIBUS

Ready, Aim, Fire . . . Hit Foot

Has John Kerry given up trying to suck up to gun-owning America?

BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Friday, September 17, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

The political class was busy this week trying to figure out why,
after months of sucking up to the gun-owning public, John Kerry
tossed aside all his hard work and condemned the end of the "assault"
weapons ban. Was it a play for the soccer moms? Were his advisers on
a coffee break?

There is another possibility, one that even as I write millions of
rural Americans are praying is the correct answer. Perhaps John Kerry
has given up trying to pretend he's one of them.

Ever since Al Gore had the powder wrung out of him in key electoral
states by the National Rifle Association, Democrats have been trying
to neutralize the gun issue. And no one has worked harder than Mr.
Kerry. Nearly every newspaper in America has featured him posed, gun
in hand, orange safety vest at the ready, preparing to squeeze off a
round for the history books. His stump speech is aimed at buttering
up hunters and gun owners, and just last week his campaign
declared: "John Kerry's opponents are worried because he's the first
Democratic candidate to support Second Amendment gun rights and to be
an avid hunter."

Now, Lyndon Johnson, who used to shoot deer on his Texas ranch from a
Lincoln convertible, would undoubtedly take issue with this claim.
But John Kerry's problem is bigger than dead presidents. Nobody alive
is buying his act, either, and he has only himself to blame.

Watching someone try to be something he isn't is always embarrassing,
but there's something particularly painful about watching Mr. Kerry
try to convince you that you'd want him in your duck blind for eight
hours. Certain elites still believe that all you have to do to fit in
with "country folk" is put on a flannel shirt and gush about
firearms. But none of that counts for much if you still don't know a
gun rack from an art installation.

And Mr. Kerry has trouble on that count. Take, for instance, a July
interview in which he was asked what kind of hunting he preferred.
Here was our Nantucket Natty Bumppo's response: "Probably I'd have to
say deer. . . . I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl
around on my stomach."

Now, let's admit that hunters can do some silly things. They climb
up trees and go numb sitting still for hours. They tramp across nasty
terrain. They drink too much beer and pass out in their tents and
then later lie to their buddies that they missed the biggest buck in
[you fill in the state] by only half an inch. But most have learned
that lying with one's face in the mud is not conducive to bagging a
big one. Mr. Kerry seems to have confused his time in the Mekong
Delta with his supposed many hunting trips.

His other credibility problem is his record. Guns have been a big
voter issue for a long time, and there is no shortage of
organizations on both sides of the debate to keep track of votes.
Whether you ask the NRA or the Brady Campaign, the word on John Kerry
is the same: He has voted for every gun-control bill in the Senate
over the past 18 years.

That fact led to national snickering when Mr. Kerry was pictured in
West Virginia brandishing a new shotgun that was a present from the
United Mine Workers of America. One gun expert noted that in
accepting the gun and taking it back to Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry
could break certain gun laws (undoubtedly many of which he supports),
at least one of which carries prison time. Oops.

The October edition of Outdoor Life will feature interviews with both
presidential candidates. When asked about their favorite guns,
President Bush responds: "My favorite gun is a Weatherby Athena 20
gauge." Mr. Kerry says (reminding us yet again where he was 35 years
ago): "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." So Mr.
Kerry's favorite gun is an "assault" rifle designed for war. Funny
talk coming from a guy who just went ballistic over the end of
the "assault" weapons ban.

This all explains why Mr. Kerry is getting shot down in his gun
efforts. This past weekend, while interviewing potential voters at a
Pennsylvania gun show, I asked several if Mr. Kerry's attempts to
look gun-friendly had made an impression. Those attendees who didn't
immediately bust out laughing or roll their eyes noted that it was
the past 20 years that would matter when they entered the voting
booth, not the past 20 months.

So here is a little advice from gun-owning America to you, John.
Stop, please. Before you really do shoot yourself in the foot.

Ms. Strassel is a senior editorial page writer for The Wall Street
Journal.

Billmanweh
September 17, 2004, 05:00 PM
sarah brady is gonna be pi**ed when she sees this...

:p

ZeroX
September 17, 2004, 05:45 PM
That's one of the things I like about Bush. He might not be the brightest bulb in the box but he's a straight shooter. No dancing around issues or talking in vague generalities. He still stands by all his decisions, regardless of public backlash. Kerry is just so wishy-washy.

Solo
September 17, 2004, 07:46 PM
I belive Bush has 'flip flopped' once or twice in the past.

Nothing like Kerry, though.

motorep
September 17, 2004, 09:00 PM
Illegal to bring stuff back? Probably, if anyone bothered to claim it. I got a hop on a C141-in 1968- from an unnamed base to another unnamed MAC base on a flight that had originated in another country. When it landed, I just walked off the flight line, not alone.There weren't any "this way to customs" signs. There were plenty of suspicious-looking/lumpy duffel bags being brought into the country in that general time period. Lots of war trophies/souvenirs. Could Kerry have an AK? Hell yes, he could have a couple Claymores, too. (remember, John, back toward enemy).

publius
September 18, 2004, 01:08 PM
I think he might not have the actual gun, just the memory of it seared, SEARED into his mind.

If you enjoyed reading about "Saf: Does Kerry Own Assault Rifle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!