Much like the so-called “Saturday Night Special” legeslation that has gone from fad to Liberal fashion statement. Essentually, this “ban” is nailed to the new sale price of a gun with no regard to safety features, quality, etc.

Want to get around that ban? Sell zip guns for $200. However, you will be violating a slew of gun manufacturing regulations, all of which “Saturday Night Specials” meet while staying inexpensive.

He does NOT address the points SU makes, but addresses many of the others I’ve seen tossed about.

Other than that, as I haven’t seen the movie, either, I can’t really comment.

I should disclaim that I have somewhat weird views on guns. I oppose gun prohibition laws, but don’t have a problem with gun registration requirements, provided they’re done at the state level (as with driver’s licenses) and not at the federal level.

I should also disclaim that my wife is a gun owner, and that I’m looking to join her. I’d like a recreational pistol. Something with more pop than the .22 that she has, but where the ammunition is relatively cheap.

Wow, we agree on something

I’d like a recreational pistol. Something with more pop than the .22 that she has, but where the ammunition is relatively cheap.

Any pistol in a military caliber (9mm and 45ACP) will have available bulk military ammo at any gun show cheap. But you have to buy in bulk. Or go here: http://www.ammoman.com

I’m thinking I’ll probably go 9mm, just because it’s smaller and easier to carry. As for a concealed for the wife, any recommendations?

Sigarms 239

Taurus PT145

Glock 30, 36

The sig is 9mm the others are compact 45s. I carry a 9mm. The wife has a 45. the reason is that i would have the wherewithal to shoot twice if need be. I fear my wife would be afraid to shoot more than once so she has a higher caliber pistol with more stopping power.

The sig and glock are more expensive. The taurus is less expensive but still high quality. It is double action only so if you get one for the wife, make sure she can pull the trigger easily.

[Start Excerpt] In a new column on his website titled “How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about ‘Bowling for Columbine,’” filmmaker Michael Moore has admitted to altering a caption he inserted over a 1988 Bush-Quayle commercial in the film.

Moore lashes back at critics of the Academy Award-winning documentary in his column, denouncing “character assassination” and “make-believe stories.” After blasting his critics, however, he finally concedes that he inserted a caption over a Bush-Quayle campaign commercial that did not appear in the original ad, which we documented when the movie was originally released. Moore then corrected a factual error in the caption in the DVD and VHS versions of the film. Moore writes: [End Excerpt]

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_09_21_archive.html#106429368980662837

Actually, I have found one typo in the theatrical release of the film. It was a caption that read, “Willie Horton released by Dukakis and kills again.” In fact, Willie Horton was a convicted murderer who, after escaping from furlough, raped a woman and stabbed her fiancé, but didn’t kill him. The caption has been permanently corrected on the DVD and home video version of the film and replaced with, “Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman.” My apologies to Willie Horton and the Horton family for implying he is a double-murderer when he is only a single-murderer/rapist. And my apologies to the late Lee Atwater who, on his deathbed, apologized for having engineered the smear campaign against Dukakis (but correctly identified Mr. Horton as a single-murderer!).

I should disclaim that I have somewhat weird views on guns. I oppose gun prohibition laws, but don’t have a problem with gun registration requirements, provided they’re done at the state level (as with driver’s licenses) and not at the federal level.

Wow, we agree on something

Both of you keep your regulatory paws off of my 14th Amendment Rights PLEASE!

What part of the first freaking paragraph do you not understand?

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The only worthy handgun caliber is .45, millimeters are for wrenches used on commie european cars.

Don’t tell Mr. Moore that TABASCO® Sauce was first manufactured by the McIlhenny Company in 1868 or he will tie it into the conspiracy too.

Re: Amendment #14, what’s your point? Presumably you mean that the Second Amendment is supposed to translate to the states, but frankly, I fail to see a conflict. Amendment #2 does not say “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be regulated.” It says “shall not be abridged.” In fact, it even says “well-regulated” right there in the amendment.

Based on the def I see, “abridge” is synonymous with “curtail.”

I fail to see how a gun registration curtails your right to keep and bear that gun.

You are now saying that regulating is not infringing? Great, then let’s just regulate your political speech because that is not “infringing”!

Before running down just what is to be “well regulated” in the Second Amendment, please look at the writing without a revisionist Manhattanite eye. It says NOTHING about regulating firearms.

I didn’t realize political speech wasn’t regulated. And all this time I thought I couldn’t run that “George W. Bush is a fucking cocksucker” ad on TV. Thanks, Guy, for pointing out that I can!

You mean I can run ads saying “John Ashcroft rapes teenage girls” without any fear of legal retribution? Hey, it’s free speech, right?

I’m sorry, but Guy’s view of the second amendment is overly simplistic. According to Guy’s reading, I should be legally allowed to have thermonuclear weapons in my basement, because after all, those are “arms,” and the constitution protects my right to keep them!

If you outlaw thermonuclear weapons, then only outlaws will have thermonuclear weapons!

Sorry, but Guy’s views are what’s all wrong with the gun lobby. Common sense must be kept out of the equation at all costs.

It’s not enough that I can legally own a gun. I have a right to have a completely untraceable gun, so that when I shoot that guy who pisses me off, there’s no way to prove I did it.

Maybe the wild west wasn’t such a bad place, after all.

So what you’re saying is that you can’t require them to be properly trained and equipped, because that would be intrusive regulation, and that would infringe on rights. “Well-regulated” is really just a suggestion.

I actually support the second amendment, but the “guns for everyone, no restrictions people” scare me into reconsidering that position.

No. i’m saying trained and equipped is what they referred to.

From a more level-headed perspective, I think the intent of the second amendment was as follows:

1. People have a right to own guns for self-defense, hunting, etc.
2. People have a right to collectively defend themselves should the government become oppressive. That is, if all other means for redressing grievances have failed, they can revolt.

I fail to see how a state-level gun registry violates either of these two purposes.

Assault weapons ban? Doesn’t violate the first, but certainly violates the second. Gotta go.

Concealed carry laws? Those advance the first intent, so those stay.

I guess the thing that has always nagged at me is that certain extremist elements of the gun lobby (and I’m not singling out anyone here) fiercely promote the rights of the “legal gun owner,” (which is fine) but then oppose any laws that identify “illegal” gun owners. They talk about not having new gun laws, but rather enforcing the ones we’ve got, while doing everything they can to ensure that the “ones we’ve got” are unenforceable.

And I have to admit that it’s alwasy struck me as a bit off that I need to take a proficiency test and get a license to drive, but I can buy a gun without having to demonstrate any proficiency with it whatsoever.

But you still have to register it.

Political speech is the *only* form of speech consistantly and absolutely protected by the courts through the First Amendment restrictions on government. You can poo-poo the 14th all you like, but that is the one that carried the bill of rights down to State government.

You really go all out on the Newspeak don’t you? Your examples were slander (if false), not examples of political speech.

All I’m saying is that the second amendment isn’t as cut-and-dry as you might like to think, either. If you start talking about “protected by the courts,” you’re talking about judicial precedent, and judicial precedent has not been kind to the second amendment.

You’ll pardon me if I remain unconvinced that the second amendment prohibits a gun registry. The way I read it, it would only prohibit an ownership ban.

Besides, didn’t the South Park guys do that whole cartoon montage in the middle of the film??

A few more things: (1) What movie ISN’T a bunch of propaganda, documentary or not? (2) Since when does truth have ANYTHING to do with the Academy Awards?? and (3) I’d be more proud of the Cannes honor if I were him, anyway.