How about both? It would give the authorities enough time to actually
do the check. It would also be nice if the authorities were allowed to
keep the records for decent period of time to make sure the dealers
are actually following the law. Right now, they're unable to keep them
for more than a short period, which most think is not adequate.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
I think the gov't needs to try and keep guns out of the hands
of people who've been in mental institutions for example.....

Surprise! So does the NRA! That's why NRA backed current laws that
require
background checks instead of just a two week wait to purchase.

Soft-headed religious kooks running the united methodist and other
churches
believe it sinful to punish criminals. They believe in turning the other
cheek. If a man rapes your wife, give him your daughter and yourself as
well! They have been 90% successful in eliminating government punishment.
Convicted criminals now live in comfortable cells with TV and exercise
equipment you can't afford. As a result, criminals now fear armed victims
far more than capture. So now these idiots lobby to disarm us in order to
protect those who prey on the weak. Preposterous? Go see how much money
they've given Sarah Brady and her anti-gun fronts - money paritioners
dropped into poor boxes to help the needy.

The big problem is the extremist liberals want to ban guns completely
and they make up new laws based on false information to chip away
at the Second Amendment in every possible way. They liberals pretend
they only want reasonable restrictions, when they really want to ban guns
outright. It takes huge efforts on the part of honest citizens to fight
unreasonable laws because
it takes time to prove the liberal politicians based such laws on wishful
thinking not facts or research. But citizens do fight and win in such
cases because the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right guaranteed by
the Constitution, and crime research backs up that an armed citizenry
reduces crime.

Massachusetts is the worst state in the union related to 2nd
Amendment rights. Massachusetts' gun laws and regulations are
confusing, contradictory and full of legal loopholes. They are also
ineffective, as the state's gun violence has steadily risen since 1998,
when it was heralded for passing the "toughest" firearms laws in the
country.

Disarming the public with the "toughest" firearms law in the country
had a negative effect on crime, as it only made it safer for criminals.
Gun-related homicides rose by 25 percent between 1998 and 2002.

GOAL--a gun rights group requested the background data for
the safety restrictions imposed in the restrictive 1998 Mass gun law.
The state of Massachusetts was unable to provide this information,
available under the Freedom of Information Act, for nearly a year
because the data was never assembled or studied prior to enacting
the restrictive new law! The Massachusetts Attorney General
enacted arbitrary restrictions and made up reasons as he went along,
selling the public that research backed him up.

Massachusetts is the worst state by far for gun owners because it is
the home base of extremist liberalism. Massachusetts politicians like
John Kerry support the idea that any unfounded excuse can be used to
deny residents their right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves.

John Kerry's voting record is 100% consistently against gun rights. In
every case related to gun control he has voted against gun rights.

--Voted with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence 100 percent of the time.
--Voted with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent
of the time.
--Received an F from the National Rifle Association in 2002.
--Received an F from Gun Owners of American for the 108th Congress.
--Opposes the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which grants
gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers immunity from lawsuits. The
measure passed the House and has the support of 55 senators. The Senate
is expected to consider the measure in 2004.
--Voted in favor of an amendment to the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act commonly known as the assault weapons ban. President
Clinton signed the bill into law in 1994.
--Voted in favor the Brady Bill which required a five-day waiting period on
handgun purchases and established a national instant criminal background
check system. President Clinton signed the bill into law in 1993.

It is nearly impossible for Mass residents to get a gun permit. Only 25
new permits were issued in the last year out of 6.4 million people.
After the 1998 laws were enacted, 75% of the renewals submitted by
honest citizens were denied--many because of inadequate justification. It
is virtually impossible to obtain a gun permit if you live inside the route
128
loop around Boston.

Only 124 non-resident applicant have been issued permits this year. Non
resident musts renew annually. The state police claim this restriction has
recently been eased for non residents.

The cost for a Mass gun permit is among the most expensive in the
US. For non residents, the costs are higher than every other state.
Most other states do not discriminate against non-residents. The permit
is good for only one year for non-residents versus 6 years for residents,
effectively pricing permits six times higher and out of reach for many
non-residents who travel through the state and wish to comply with
Mass state laws.

There is an automatic one year prison term for illegally carrying
a gun. Most other states class this as a misdemeanor, and will not
send you to prison for such a minor offense.

Renewals are not automatic, and if you forget to renew on time,
the reapplication can take over 6 months. Six years of Mass residents
fighting the new restrictions resulted in a recently enacted 60 day grace
period. Also, it has been common for paperwork to be returned for
resubmittal to delay issuance and restrict applications.

The number of licensed gun dealers has dropped by more than 60
percent since 1998, falling from around 950 businesses to 355.

Ms. Kaprielian of Watertown, Massachusetts has proposed this
beautiful piece of legislation. It includes (1) insuring yourself for a
minimum of $250,000, (2) "presenting to the licensing authority a
complete list of every handgun owned by the applicant, (for when
they come and take them away), and (3) 5 years in jail if you don't
comply. Registering firearms is the preliminary step to seizure.

Suing gun manufacturers for crimes committed by individuals began in
Mass. Fortunately the government costs to pursue this are staggering.
The city of Boston has dropped it's participation due to the high cost.

Many gun manufacturers won't sell products in Mass anymore for fear
of unreasonable laws and the lack of protection for such businesses.

Gun dealers could not sell existing stocks of guns in state because the
guns did not meet the new safety requirements. Yet guns used by
police don't meet these new requirements! The 1998 law was squarely
aimed at killing gun dealer businesses, and restricting gun sales, and hurts
honest citizens who can pass background checks, not criminals who
buy guns on the street or steal them.

"Smith & Wesson, which angered some competitors and consumers
when it struck a federal gun-safety deal, had to shut down two manufacturing
plants during July due to slow sales. The company hoped its agreement with
the government would bring in more contracts from city police departments.
The deal hurt the company with buyers. In exchange for being dropped
from $100 million municipal lawsuits challenging the safety and marketing
practices of the gun industry, Smith & Wesson promised to install safety
locks,
demand background checks on gun-show buyers, and work on guns that can
be fired only by their owner. Competitors have sued the government and some
cities over the agreement, calling it a restraint on trade. They argue that
the
government is illegally pushing police departments to buy from Smith &
Wesson. This is a clear example of government interference in free
trade, and strong arm tactics to achieve the political objective of
extremist
liberals.

--I've read that Glock and Browning halted shipment of guns to Mass.

--What's next? There really only two actions left to the attorney general,
a
complete ban and confiscation. This is clearly his goal.

-- Massachusetts citizens have been fighting back their extremist liberal
politicians, and recently got many of these restrictions eased. When a new
law made things less restrictive, these extremist politicians were spouting
off anti-gun rhetoric as if the new law more restrictive, when it was not,
taking
credit for something that didn't happen! Further pro-gun lawsuits are still
on
the docket and the swing is expected to go back the other way--albeit at
great cost to businesses and honest citizens.

So where does John Kerry really stand?

Curiously, all the Democratic presidential candidates made virtually
identical statements about gun ownership being an individual right,
but they all supported the same "reasonable restrictions" on gun
ownership: banning so-called semiautomatic assault weapons,
regulating gun shows, opposing restrictions on lawsuits against
gunmakers.

Given all this sudden agreement, they either all had an epiphany
(doubtful) or got the same political advice. Surveys showed that if
Democrats didn't show "respect for the 2nd Amendment "
voters would presume that they were anti-gun. "The formula for
Democrats," according to Penn, "is to say that they support the 2nd
Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes."

Evidence suggests this conversion is just for show. The policy gurus
for the Democratic presidential campaigns pitched their candidates at
a think-tank breakfast in Washington in January at the American
Enterprise Institute. They were explicitly asked where they draw the
line on reasonable restrictions. Where do they stand on, say, the
bans on handgun ownership in Chicago and the District of Columbia?

Only Joe Lieberman's representative answered the question. The
now-former Democratic candidate "would oppose an outright ban
on handguns, and he is not afraid to say so." Representatives for
Kerry, Edward and Clark would not respond.

Supporting "reasonable restrictions" sounds moderate, but perhaps
the extremist view--an outright ban on ownership might be "reasonable".

Kerry also has other political baggage on the issue of guns. Kerry
has a perfect pro-control voting record over his career in the Senate.
And when the Senate vote took place earlier this year on reining in
the reckless lawsuits, Kerry made one of his very rare appearances
since the beginning of 2003. Kerry skipped votes on extending
unemployment insurance to prescription drugs to the military, but
not the votes on extending the semiautomatic gun ban or the regulation
of gun shows. Whatever his current rhetoric, Kerry is passionately
in favor of gun control.

Kerry comes from the home of extreme liberalism, Massachusetts,
and the record of that state is clearly at the most extreme left of
liberalism.
The trend there is clear. Deny permits, jail those who can't get a permit
and chose to carry, and attack very aspect of gun ownership, gun
sales, businesses, and manufacturers. Massachusetts is a state that is
as extreme as can be with respect to gun ownership. They have thrown
logic out the window and arbitrarily enacted laws with the sole purpose
of eviscerating the 2nd Amendment.

Now we have a liberal Presidential candidate which, by his actions show
him to be at the extremist edge of liberalism.

Judge Kerry on his actions and background:

1. Kerry rarely showing up in Congress except when voting for pro-gun
control, and,
2. His power base in the most extremist land of liberalism--Massachusetts.

Finally we need to think about what sort of damage an extremist liberal
like Kerry could do to the 2nd Amendment.

He would certainly make gun control a major part of his administration since
it is the one area he seems to care about the most, as shown by his senate
voting record.

Blah, blah, blah. I'm not an extremist but you seem to be.
You called a decorated war hero unpatriotic, then tried
to use the argument that one has to have served inorder
to be patriotic. Which is it?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
...
The big problem is the extremist liberals want to ban guns completely
and they make up new laws based on false information to chip away
at the Second Amendment in every possible way. They liberals pretend
they only want reasonable restrictions, when they really want to ban guns
outright. It takes huge efforts on the part of honest citizens to fight
unreasonable laws because
it takes time to prove the liberal politicians based such laws on wishful
thinking not facts or research. But citizens do fight and win in such
cases because the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right guaranteed by
the Constitution, and crime research backs up that an armed citizenry
reduces crime.

Massachusetts is the worst state in the union related to 2nd
Amendment rights. Massachusetts' gun laws and regulations are
confusing, contradictory and full of legal loopholes. They are also
ineffective, as the state's gun violence has steadily risen since 1998,
when it was heralded for passing the "toughest" firearms laws in the
country.

Disarming the public with the "toughest" firearms law in the country
had a negative effect on crime, as it only made it safer for criminals.
Gun-related homicides rose by 25 percent between 1998 and 2002.

GOAL--a gun rights group requested the background data for
the safety restrictions imposed in the restrictive 1998 Mass gun law.
The state of Massachusetts was unable to provide this information,
available under the Freedom of Information Act, for nearly a year
because the data was never assembled or studied prior to enacting
the restrictive new law! The Massachusetts Attorney General
enacted arbitrary restrictions and made up reasons as he went along,
selling the public that research backed him up.

Massachusetts is the worst state by far for gun owners because it is
the home base of extremist liberalism. Massachusetts politicians like
John Kerry support the idea that any unfounded excuse can be used to
deny residents their right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves.

John Kerry's voting record is 100% consistently against gun rights. In
every case related to gun control he has voted against gun rights.

--Voted with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence 100 percent of the time.
--Voted with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent
of the time.
--Received an F from the National Rifle Association in 2002.
--Received an F from Gun Owners of American for the 108th Congress.
--Opposes the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which grants
gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers immunity from lawsuits. The
measure passed the House and has the support of 55 senators. The Senate
is expected to consider the measure in 2004.
--Voted in favor of an amendment to the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act commonly known as the assault weapons ban. President
Clinton signed the bill into law in 1994.
--Voted in favor the Brady Bill which required a five-day waiting period
on
handgun purchases and established a national instant criminal background
check system. President Clinton signed the bill into law in 1993.

It is nearly impossible for Mass residents to get a gun permit. Only 25
new permits were issued in the last year out of 6.4 million people.
After the 1998 laws were enacted, 75% of the renewals submitted by
honest citizens were denied--many because of inadequate justification. It
is virtually impossible to obtain a gun permit if you live inside the
route
128
loop around Boston.

Only 124 non-resident applicant have been issued permits this year. Non
resident musts renew annually. The state police claim this restriction
has
recently been eased for non residents.

The cost for a Mass gun permit is among the most expensive in the
US. For non residents, the costs are higher than every other state.
Most other states do not discriminate against non-residents. The permit
is good for only one year for non-residents versus 6 years for residents,
effectively pricing permits six times higher and out of reach for many
non-residents who travel through the state and wish to comply with
Mass state laws.

There is an automatic one year prison term for illegally carrying
a gun. Most other states class this as a misdemeanor, and will not
send you to prison for such a minor offense.

Renewals are not automatic, and if you forget to renew on time,
the reapplication can take over 6 months. Six years of Mass residents
fighting the new restrictions resulted in a recently enacted 60 day grace
period. Also, it has been common for paperwork to be returned for
resubmittal to delay issuance and restrict applications.

The number of licensed gun dealers has dropped by more than 60
percent since 1998, falling from around 950 businesses to 355.

Ms. Kaprielian of Watertown, Massachusetts has proposed this
beautiful piece of legislation. It includes (1) insuring yourself for a
minimum of $250,000, (2) "presenting to the licensing authority a
complete list of every handgun owned by the applicant, (for when
they come and take them away), and (3) 5 years in jail if you don't
comply. Registering firearms is the preliminary step to seizure.

Suing gun manufacturers for crimes committed by individuals began in
Mass. Fortunately the government costs to pursue this are staggering.
The city of Boston has dropped it's participation due to the high cost.

Many gun manufacturers won't sell products in Mass anymore for fear
of unreasonable laws and the lack of protection for such businesses.

Gun dealers could not sell existing stocks of guns in state because the
guns did not meet the new safety requirements. Yet guns used by
police don't meet these new requirements! The 1998 law was squarely
aimed at killing gun dealer businesses, and restricting gun sales, and
hurts
honest citizens who can pass background checks, not criminals who
buy guns on the street or steal them.

"Smith & Wesson, which angered some competitors and consumers
when it struck a federal gun-safety deal, had to shut down two
manufacturing
plants during July due to slow sales. The company hoped its agreement with
the government would bring in more contracts from city police departments.
The deal hurt the company with buyers. In exchange for being dropped
from $100 million municipal lawsuits challenging the safety and marketing
practices of the gun industry, Smith & Wesson promised to install safety
locks,
demand background checks on gun-show buyers, and work on guns that can
be fired only by their owner. Competitors have sued the government and
some
cities over the agreement, calling it a restraint on trade. They argue
that
the
government is illegally pushing police departments to buy from Smith &
Wesson. This is a clear example of government interference in free
trade, and strong arm tactics to achieve the political objective of
extremist
liberals.

--I've read that Glock and Browning halted shipment of guns to Mass.

--What's next? There really only two actions left to the attorney
general,
a
complete ban and confiscation. This is clearly his goal.

-- Massachusetts citizens have been fighting back their extremist liberal
politicians, and recently got many of these restrictions eased. When a
new
law made things less restrictive, these extremist politicians were
spouting
off anti-gun rhetoric as if the new law more restrictive, when it was not,
taking
credit for something that didn't happen! Further pro-gun lawsuits are
still
on
the docket and the swing is expected to go back the other way--albeit at
great cost to businesses and honest citizens.

So where does John Kerry really stand?

Curiously, all the Democratic presidential candidates made virtually
identical statements about gun ownership being an individual right,
but they all supported the same "reasonable restrictions" on gun
ownership: banning so-called semiautomatic assault weapons,
regulating gun shows, opposing restrictions on lawsuits against
gunmakers.

Given all this sudden agreement, they either all had an epiphany
(doubtful) or got the same political advice. Surveys showed that if
Democrats didn't show "respect for the 2nd Amendment "
voters would presume that they were anti-gun. "The formula for
Democrats," according to Penn, "is to say that they support the 2nd
Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes."

Evidence suggests this conversion is just for show. The policy gurus
for the Democratic presidential campaigns pitched their candidates at
a think-tank breakfast in Washington in January at the American
Enterprise Institute. They were explicitly asked where they draw the
line on reasonable restrictions. Where do they stand on, say, the
bans on handgun ownership in Chicago and the District of Columbia?

Only Joe Lieberman's representative answered the question. The
now-former Democratic candidate "would oppose an outright ban
on handguns, and he is not afraid to say so." Representatives for
Kerry, Edward and Clark would not respond.

Supporting "reasonable restrictions" sounds moderate, but perhaps
the extremist view--an outright ban on ownership might be "reasonable".

Kerry also has other political baggage on the issue of guns. Kerry
has a perfect pro-control voting record over his career in the Senate.
And when the Senate vote took place earlier this year on reining in
the reckless lawsuits, Kerry made one of his very rare appearances
since the beginning of 2003. Kerry skipped votes on extending
unemployment insurance to prescription drugs to the military, but
not the votes on extending the semiautomatic gun ban or the regulation
of gun shows. Whatever his current rhetoric, Kerry is passionately
in favor of gun control.

Kerry comes from the home of extreme liberalism, Massachusetts,
and the record of that state is clearly at the most extreme left of
liberalism.
The trend there is clear. Deny permits, jail those who can't get a permit
and chose to carry, and attack very aspect of gun ownership, gun
sales, businesses, and manufacturers. Massachusetts is a state that is
as extreme as can be with respect to gun ownership. They have thrown
logic out the window and arbitrarily enacted laws with the sole purpose
of eviscerating the 2nd Amendment.

Now we have a liberal Presidential candidate which, by his actions show
him to be at the extremist edge of liberalism.

Judge Kerry on his actions and background:

1. Kerry rarely showing up in Congress except when voting for pro-gun
control, and,
2. His power base in the most extremist land of
liberalism--Massachusetts.

Finally we need to think about what sort of damage an extremist liberal
like Kerry could do to the 2nd Amendment.

He would certainly make gun control a major part of his administration
since
it is the one area he seems to care about the most, as shown by his senate
voting record.

That was my point you idiot. You and Bart need to get your
collective acts together.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:17:26 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

You called a decorated war hero unpatriotic, then tried
to use the argument that one has to have served inorder
to be patriotic. Which is it?

You need a course in basic logic. The two propositions are not mutually
exclusive. It does not follow from "Only those who served are patriotic"
that "All those who served are patriotic."


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Why? The FBI had 5 years to build/maintain a data base of people forbidden
to own guns for reasons defined by law, including criminality and mental
disease. That task was completed decades ago. It allows gun dealers (and
police) to run "instant" background checks via internet, and dealers are
required to do so on ever sale. This system has proven so effective that
guns taken from criminals inevatively prove to have been stolen, not
purchased.

What records are only kept for short periods? Gun dealers are also required
to keep records of every sale essentially forever and BATF checks each
dealer for compliance several times a year. This allows law enforcement to
quickly trace any/every gun from point of manufacture or import to the
purchaser by making a few phone calls. FBI and BATF both want $billions to
keep redundent records that serve no purpose but so far Congress has wisely
refused them the money. Maybe that's what you heard about??

Laws to disarm honest citizens serve only to protect criminals from their
victims - but then that's what they are intended to do.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
How about both? It would give the authorities enough time to actually
do the check. It would also be nice if the authorities were allowed to
keep the records for decent period of time to make sure the dealers
are actually following the law. Right now, they're unable to keep them
for more than a short period, which most think is not adequate.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
I think the gov't needs to try and keep guns out of the hands
of people who've been in mental institutions for example.....

Surprise! So does the NRA! That's why NRA backed current laws that
require
background checks instead of just a two week wait to purchase.

Wrong enemy, Bart. Liberals do NOT want to ban guns completely. Staunch
liberals like Diane Fienstien (sp?) and Teddy Kennedy either carry guns or
hire bodyguards who do. But they are for sale just like Bush is for sale
and will sponsor anti-gun legislation for a fee. Who pays them? The same
people who pay Sarah Brady - the churches who irrationally believe that self
defense is a sin and should be a crime. Why do you think they want guns
with no sporting purpose banned first? Why all the outcry calling every act
of self defense "vigilantism"? I repeat: know your enemy! You'll find him
in your church with his hand in the poor box and collection plate, diverting
money donated to the poor to Sarah Brady so she can buy politicians.


"Bart Senior" wrote in message
...
The big problem is the extremist liberals want to ban guns completely
and they make up new laws based on false information to chip away
at the Second Amendment in every possible way. ......

It's your and his argument not mine. I suggest you take your own
suggestion. You'll look smarter if nothing else.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
In that case, you instead need a course in putting brain in gear before
putting fingers to keyboard..

When one asks "which is it" the implication is that the two possibilities
are mutually exclusive.


On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:26:04 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:


That was my point you idiot. You and Bart need to get your
collective acts together.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:17:26 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

You called a decorated war hero unpatriotic, then tried
to use the argument that one has to have served inorder
to be patriotic. Which is it?

You need a course in basic logic. The two propositions are not mutually
exclusive. It does not follow from "Only those who served are
patriotic"
that "All those who served are patriotic."


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

I believe there is a restriction on law enforcement that prevents them
from keeping the records of purchases for more than a brief period.
I don't know the reference. It's not important enough for me to look
it up.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
Why? The FBI had 5 years to build/maintain a data base of people forbidden
to own guns for reasons defined by law, including criminality and mental
disease. That task was completed decades ago. It allows gun dealers (and
police) to run "instant" background checks via internet, and dealers are
required to do so on ever sale. This system has proven so effective that
guns taken from criminals inevatively prove to have been stolen, not
purchased.

What records are only kept for short periods? Gun dealers are also
required
to keep records of every sale essentially forever and BATF checks each
dealer for compliance several times a year. This allows law enforcement
to
quickly trace any/every gun from point of manufacture or import to the
purchaser by making a few phone calls. FBI and BATF both want $billions
to
keep redundent records that serve no purpose but so far Congress has
wisely
refused them the money. Maybe that's what you heard about??

Laws to disarm honest citizens serve only to protect criminals from their
victims - but then that's what they are intended to do.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
How about both? It would give the authorities enough time to actually
do the check. It would also be nice if the authorities were allowed to
keep the records for decent period of time to make sure the dealers
are actually following the law. Right now, they're unable to keep them
for more than a short period, which most think is not adequate.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
I think the gov't needs to try and keep guns out of the hands
of people who've been in mental institutions for example.....

Surprise! So does the NRA! That's why NRA backed current laws that
require
background checks instead of just a two week wait to purchase.

Kerry sold out. He went for the cash. He
wanted to be a war hero for the same reason
as Joe and John Kennedy did--ONLY to help his
political career. He got his first purple heart
when he opened fire on a bank of dirt which
had no enemy troops. He was not under any enemy
fire when he was injured! His CO thought Kerry
was "WEIRD" when he put himself in for a purple
heart when he injured himself with a minor injury!
He remembered Kerry because of this incident, and
also because Kerry claimed he would be the next JFK.

Kerry wanted to look like a war hero, he was hunting
for medals. I doubt he would do what he did if he
didn't plan to write himself up for a medal.

Hero's don't write their own decorations.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote

Blah, blah, blah. I'm not an extremist but you seem to be.
You called a decorated war hero unpatriotic, then tried
to use the argument that one has to have served inorder
to be patriotic. Which is it?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
...
The big problem is the extremist liberals want to ban guns completely
and they make up new laws based on false information to chip away
at the Second Amendment in every possible way. They liberals pretend
they only want reasonable restrictions, when they really want to ban guns
outright. It takes huge efforts on the part of honest citizens to fight
unreasonable laws because
it takes time to prove the liberal politicians based such laws on wishful
thinking not facts or research. But citizens do fight and win in such
cases because the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right guaranteed by
the Constitution, and crime research backs up that an armed citizenry
reduces crime.

Massachusetts is the worst state in the union related to 2nd
Amendment rights. Massachusetts' gun laws and regulations are
confusing, contradictory and full of legal loopholes. They are also
ineffective, as the state's gun violence has steadily risen since 1998,
when it was heralded for passing the "toughest" firearms laws in the
country.

Disarming the public with the "toughest" firearms law in the country
had a negative effect on crime, as it only made it safer for criminals.
Gun-related homicides rose by 25 percent between 1998 and 2002.

GOAL--a gun rights group requested the background data for
the safety restrictions imposed in the restrictive 1998 Mass gun law.
The state of Massachusetts was unable to provide this information,
available under the Freedom of Information Act, for nearly a year
because the data was never assembled or studied prior to enacting
the restrictive new law! The Massachusetts Attorney General
enacted arbitrary restrictions and made up reasons as he went along,
selling the public that research backed him up.

Massachusetts is the worst state by far for gun owners because it is
the home base of extremist liberalism. Massachusetts politicians like
John Kerry support the idea that any unfounded excuse can be used to
deny residents their right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves.

John Kerry's voting record is 100% consistently against gun rights. In
every case related to gun control he has voted against gun rights.

--Voted with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence 100 percent of the time.
--Voted with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent
of the time.
--Received an F from the National Rifle Association in 2002.
--Received an F from Gun Owners of American for the 108th Congress.
--Opposes the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which grants
gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers immunity from lawsuits. The
measure passed the House and has the support of 55 senators. The Senate
is expected to consider the measure in 2004.
--Voted in favor of an amendment to the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act commonly known as the assault weapons ban. President
Clinton signed the bill into law in 1994.
--Voted in favor the Brady Bill which required a five-day waiting period
on
handgun purchases and established a national instant criminal background
check system. President Clinton signed the bill into law in 1993.

It is nearly impossible for Mass residents to get a gun permit. Only 25
new permits were issued in the last year out of 6.4 million people.
After the 1998 laws were enacted, 75% of the renewals submitted by
honest citizens were denied--many because of inadequate justification. It
is virtually impossible to obtain a gun permit if you live inside the
route
128
loop around Boston.

Only 124 non-resident applicant have been issued permits this year. Non
resident musts renew annually. The state police claim this restriction
has
recently been eased for non residents.

The cost for a Mass gun permit is among the most expensive in the
US. For non residents, the costs are higher than every other state.
Most other states do not discriminate against non-residents. The permit
is good for only one year for non-residents versus 6 years for residents,
effectively pricing permits six times higher and out of reach for many
non-residents who travel through the state and wish to comply with
Mass state laws.

There is an automatic one year prison term for illegally carrying
a gun. Most other states class this as a misdemeanor, and will not
send you to prison for such a minor offense.

Renewals are not automatic, and if you forget to renew on time,
the reapplication can take over 6 months. Six years of Mass residents
fighting the new restrictions resulted in a recently enacted 60 day grace
period. Also, it has been common for paperwork to be returned for
resubmittal to delay issuance and restrict applications.

The number of licensed gun dealers has dropped by more than 60
percent since 1998, falling from around 950 businesses to 355.

Ms. Kaprielian of Watertown, Massachusetts has proposed this
beautiful piece of legislation. It includes (1) insuring yourself for a
minimum of $250,000, (2) "presenting to the licensing authority a
complete list of every handgun owned by the applicant, (for when
they come and take them away), and (3) 5 years in jail if you don't
comply. Registering firearms is the preliminary step to seizure.

Suing gun manufacturers for crimes committed by individuals began in
Mass. Fortunately the government costs to pursue this are staggering.
The city of Boston has dropped it's participation due to the high cost.

Many gun manufacturers won't sell products in Mass anymore for fear
of unreasonable laws and the lack of protection for such businesses.

Gun dealers could not sell existing stocks of guns in state because the
guns did not meet the new safety requirements. Yet guns used by
police don't meet these new requirements! The 1998 law was squarely
aimed at killing gun dealer businesses, and restricting gun sales, and
hurts
honest citizens who can pass background checks, not criminals who
buy guns on the street or steal them.

"Smith & Wesson, which angered some competitors and consumers
when it struck a federal gun-safety deal, had to shut down two
manufacturing
plants during July due to slow sales. The company hoped its agreement with
the government would bring in more contracts from city police departments.
The deal hurt the company with buyers. In exchange for being dropped
from $100 million municipal lawsuits challenging the safety and marketing
practices of the gun industry, Smith & Wesson promised to install safety
locks,
demand background checks on gun-show buyers, and work on guns that can
be fired only by their owner. Competitors have sued the government and
some
cities over the agreement, calling it a restraint on trade. They argue
that
the
government is illegally pushing police departments to buy from Smith &
Wesson. This is a clear example of government interference in free
trade, and strong arm tactics to achieve the political objective of
extremist
liberals.

--I've read that Glock and Browning halted shipment of guns to Mass.

--What's next? There really only two actions left to the attorney
general,
a
complete ban and confiscation. This is clearly his goal.

-- Massachusetts citizens have been fighting back their extremist liberal
politicians, and recently got many of these restrictions eased. When a
new
law made things less restrictive, these extremist politicians were
spouting
off anti-gun rhetoric as if the new law more restrictive, when it was not,
taking
credit for something that didn't happen! Further pro-gun lawsuits are
still
on
the docket and the swing is expected to go back the other way--albeit at
great cost to businesses and honest citizens.

So where does John Kerry really stand?

Curiously, all the Democratic presidential candidates made virtually
identical statements about gun ownership being an individual right,
but they all supported the same "reasonable restrictions" on gun
ownership: banning so-called semiautomatic assault weapons,
regulating gun shows, opposing restrictions on lawsuits against
gunmakers.

Given all this sudden agreement, they either all had an epiphany
(doubtful) or got the same political advice. Surveys showed that if
Democrats didn't show "respect for the 2nd Amendment "
voters would presume that they were anti-gun. "The formula for
Democrats," according to Penn, "is to say that they support the 2nd
Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes."

Evidence suggests this conversion is just for show. The policy gurus
for the Democratic presidential campaigns pitched their candidates at
a think-tank breakfast in Washington in January at the American
Enterprise Institute. They were explicitly asked where they draw the
line on reasonable restrictions. Where do they stand on, say, the
bans on handgun ownership in Chicago and the District of Columbia?

Only Joe Lieberman's representative answered the question. The
now-former Democratic candidate "would oppose an outright ban
on handguns, and he is not afraid to say so." Representatives for
Kerry, Edward and Clark would not respond.

Supporting "reasonable restrictions" sounds moderate, but perhaps
the extremist view--an outright ban on ownership might be "reasonable".

Kerry also has other political baggage on the issue of guns. Kerry
has a perfect pro-control voting record over his career in the Senate.
And when the Senate vote took place earlier this year on reining in
the reckless lawsuits, Kerry made one of his very rare appearances
since the beginning of 2003. Kerry skipped votes on extending
unemployment insurance to prescription drugs to the military, but
not the votes on extending the semiautomatic gun ban or the regulation
of gun shows. Whatever his current rhetoric, Kerry is passionately
in favor of gun control.

Kerry comes from the home of extreme liberalism, Massachusetts,
and the record of that state is clearly at the most extreme left of
liberalism.
The trend there is clear. Deny permits, jail those who can't get a permit
and chose to carry, and attack very aspect of gun ownership, gun
sales, businesses, and manufacturers. Massachusetts is a state that is
as extreme as can be with respect to gun ownership. They have thrown
logic out the window and arbitrarily enacted laws with the sole purpose
of eviscerating the 2nd Amendment.

Now we have a liberal Presidential candidate which, by his actions show
him to be at the extremist edge of liberalism.

Judge Kerry on his actions and background:

1. Kerry rarely showing up in Congress except when voting for pro-gun
control, and,
2. His power base in the most extremist land of
liberalism--Massachusetts.

Finally we need to think about what sort of damage an extremist liberal
like Kerry could do to the 2nd Amendment.

He would certainly make gun control a major part of his administration
since
it is the one area he seems to care about the most, as shown by his senate
voting record.

N1EE wrote:
Kerry sold out. He went for the cash. He
wanted to be a war hero for the same reason
as Joe and John Kennedy did--ONLY to help his
political career.

??? Bart, what are you smoking?

Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger, he had no involvement in politics.

If you really think that John F. Kennedy *only* got invovled in WW2 in
order to further his political future, you are really nuts. Why would he
risk his life repeatedly to save men under his command? To win one vote
at a time?

You might have some reason to say that the whole PT-109 incident was the
result of poor skippering, but to claim that it was either fabricated or
merely a politically motivated stunt is just as whacko as claiming the
Holocaust did not happen.

The whole "Viet Nam Vets Against Kerry" and all the malicious stories
they are spreading is bought-and-paid-for advertising. No more, no less.
You might as well base your political opinions on what you see in Pepsi ads.

DSK