What do you think?


PDA






Reddbecca
April 1, 2007, 05:37 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v444/hasanbeensober/Gun%20ads/Image142.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v444/hasanbeensober/Gun%20ads/Image144.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v444/hasanbeensober/Gun%20ads/Image143.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v444/hasanbeensober/Gun%20ads/Image139.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v444/hasanbeensober/Gun%20ads/Image122.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v444/hasanbeensober/Gun%20ads/Image116.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "What do you think?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cheygriz
April 1, 2007, 05:40 PM
Man if you're trying to apply logic to politicians, what kinda kool aid you drinking?????:evil:

thedpp
April 1, 2007, 05:47 PM
They have no clue... its a fact no reason beating a dead horse :banghead:
G Washington must be frowning right now on what the united states has become

Mr White
April 1, 2007, 06:45 PM
Its "Root Canal", not "Route Canal".

Archie
April 1, 2007, 06:59 PM
Makes sense to me.

wdlsguy
April 1, 2007, 07:05 PM
The terrorists ... haven't been able to hit a single plane yet.
I don't like this one, because it implies that terrorists are actually attempting to shoot down planes with .50 caliber rifles.

Vairochana
April 1, 2007, 07:07 PM
I like them- a bit wordy but then they have a lot to say:)

NailGun
April 1, 2007, 07:17 PM
Reddbecca, I think the pics. are nice. I think the wording should be more subtle...delicate...balanced.

It depends entirely on your intent. Is the purpose to persuade and win folks over, or shock value.

While shock value is persuasive, it may not yield the result you desire.

Nailgun.

Reddbecca
April 1, 2007, 07:17 PM
I don't like this one, because it implies that terrorists are actually attempting to shoot down planes with .50 caliber rifles.

It's a rough one, but I don't know how else to make it look like the politicians have their heads up their butts while they talk.

The only other thing I could think of is "25 years after it was introduced, not one plane has been shot down yet."

Jorg Nysgerrig
April 1, 2007, 07:31 PM
I'm still not clear on how HR 1022 would ban that revolver.

The bill says, "A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General".

It seems pretty clear to me that it is referring to "such a firearm" based on the design of a "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use". Where does a revolver figure into that?

KINGMAX
April 1, 2007, 07:32 PM
I want one pictired in post # 1

ctdonath
April 1, 2007, 07:38 PM
Maybe the revolver figures in because if "gun people" can't figure out what the bill bans, then a lot of good people are going to get hurt by a law no reasonable person can understand because ignorant bigots didn't understand what they were writing.

Reddbecca
April 1, 2007, 08:00 PM
It seems pretty clear to me that it is referring to "such a firearm" based on the design of a "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use". Where does a revolver figure into that?

Going by the text of the legislation itself.

"In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

The text is ambiguous enough that it could easily be used to ban single-action revolvers, because the military had them first in 1873. It makes no mention of the firearm needing to be from a certain era to be brought up for a vote of banning.

All firearms technology we have today was first introduced for use in the military, and then adapted over for civilian and police use.

Reddbecca
April 1, 2007, 11:43 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v444/hasanbeensober/Gun%20ads/Image146.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v444/hasanbeensober/Gun%20ads/Image144.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v444/hasanbeensober/Gun%20ads/Image148.jpg

Jorg Nysgerrig
April 1, 2007, 11:56 PM
I think you're misreading that section.

But, to move on, where does this come from? "currently held models would be confiscated and destroyed"?

This bill is bad enough without adding any extra "scare factor" to it.

Reddbecca
April 2, 2007, 12:08 AM
I think you're misreading that section.

Not my fault the section is overly vague and easily misconstrued.

But, to move on, where does this come from? "currently held models would be confiscated and destroyed"?

This bill is bad enough without adding any extra "scare factor" to it.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022

The text of the "grandfather provision" suggests that NO previously owned firearms will be exempt from the ban. That would mean all currently held models would be confiscated. And since they're illegal under the law, they'd be destroyed.

Jorg Nysgerrig
April 2, 2007, 12:42 AM
Not my fault the section is overly vague and easily misconstrued.

Perhaps not, but you certainly seem willing to base your pictures off of what you misconstrue. Here's how I read it:





The text of the "grandfather provision" suggests that NO previously owned firearms will be exempt from the ban. That would mean all currently held models would be confiscated. And since they're illegal under the law, they'd be destroyed.

You may wish to read your own link.

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.

That pretty clearly says that paragraph 1 (which says: It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.) will not apply to firearms that are own when it is enacted.

I suppose that actually understanding what it says doesn't make for quite so dramatic statements.

230RN
April 2, 2007, 01:04 AM
Ms. Feinstein, keep your damned finger off the damned trigger.

OK?

Thank you.

clarkford
April 2, 2007, 02:19 AM
i saw an anti-gun website that stated terrorists could shoot at planes with the .50. well no duh, but thanks for throwing that idea up in the air you liberal hypocrit punks.

Colt46
April 2, 2007, 03:54 AM
is brilliant. It brings the whole ludicrous aspect to .50 cals bringing down jetliners into sharp focus.

jt1
April 2, 2007, 03:57 AM
HR 1022 - We may differ on the language, but not the intent. Let's all contact our elected representatives and make our voice heard outside this thread.

Dr. Dickie
April 2, 2007, 08:54 AM
That pretty clearly says that paragraph 1 (which says: It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.) will not apply to firearms that are own when it is enacted.

And the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY says that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but once you get lawyers reading it all bets are off.

Damien45
April 2, 2007, 08:59 AM
I suggested a letter to each individual candidates coming up for election (or re-election) that clearly states my (our?) intent to vote on the issue. Not multiple, not party dedication, but rights issue. I fully intend to vote for the Presidential Candidate who will fight to protect, and restore our 2A rights. That includes Congress, HR, Senate, and local (Gov, District, ect.) electees in 2008.

I say send it to all the candidates. Let's draft a letter that we can all use that states that intent clearly. Then see if any respond (maybe not with a letter back, but through campaigning).

Reddbecca
April 2, 2007, 10:53 AM
And the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY says that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but once you get lawyers reading it all bets are off.

Exactly. My ads are operating under a worst case scenario, to get people motivated against it.

The bill states that anything used by the military and police will be declared "non sporting" in nature and banned. It also states that a fiream won't be determined "sporting" in nature simply because its suitable for use in a sporting event. That means ANY gun can be declared "non sporting" and banned from civilian ownership.

The language of the grandfather clause is highly dubious too. Don't think for a minute that it couldn't be read and construed to mean that "no semi-automatic firearms will be exempt from this bill".

DF357
April 2, 2007, 03:53 PM
I'll send my letters of to Kennedy and Kerry right away ! :banghead:

rmurfster
April 2, 2007, 05:03 PM
Reddbecca,

You're obviously very talented and can make your point through pictures, which as the saying goes, speaks louder than words.

However, as Jorg is trying to point out, we must be accurate with our accusations; otherwise, we will look foolish and look like we're trying to manipulate to our cause.

If we pervert the truth, we're no better than those on the other side that do it to us through the abuse of gun statistics leading to children's deaths, etc.

If you enjoyed reading about "What do you think?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!