Jerry: I have to agree with the GreyBeard on this one, and strongly. Although I have researched the Hud/S&W agreement and (personally) do not think it still stands, there are plenty of left wing idjits who will argue that it does and continue to pursue American civilian disarmament. I can understand Bush's desire not to stroke any more protests from the left at this time but before Bush either leaves the White House or attempts a 2nd term, that agreement should be struck as null and void by the administration. That is the only way it will ever disappear.
One of the posters mentioned that in the buy-out, the new owners purchased all the rights to the S&W name, but also got stuck with the agreement and in that regard it still stands, whether this administration has chosen to pursue it or not. I would like nothing more than to see this agreement declared null by the administration and have that albatross off the necks of law abiding citizens and the Police who would also be subject to the lesser quality product called for under the agreement.
I am so tired of listening to the demicraps trying to enact laws or regulations that, in effect, control people. I am tired of their bitching that the Constitution isn't adequate to cover every single unforeseeable instance one can imagine and that it should be amended to do so.
I abhor the notion of a 'Constitutional Convention' and feel that if the demicraps ever hold one, the gun owners of America should show up, armed and in force, to disband that convention and perserve the Constitution. It is within our rights to do so and we should exercise that right. You might notice that they would never publically announce the date, time and location of such a 'convening', but we could easily find out and I think it would be our Constitutional responsibility to take up our arms in its defense.
I think we should also move to require any ideas about Constitutional changes to be subject to a 'plain language useage' and a grass roots vote across the nation. I firmly believe, that with the intent of the left-wingers fully exposed through the 'plain language useage' requirement and the impact of those proposed changes also made known in plain language, that any such changes which would effect greater constraints upon our Constitutional rights will meet such public resistance as to be roundly defeated.
While it is true that we cannot control the actions of either the media or zealots, we can always hold them more accountable, publically. Media that simply allows editorial opinions, which if taken later could result in harm or injury to a citizen, should be held accountable for its actions and statements. Zealots who express similar opinions should also be held accountable for their actions if the result is untoward. Those who say - this is the law I wanted and although I am sorry that such a terrible trajedy happened to this one person (or group of people) because this was not the intent of this law - should be held accountable for the actions they have caused. Do you remember the racist politican from Georgia who stated that Bush was in league with the Al-Quida, and yada, yada, yada????? They just let that racist idjits spew their racial hatred. Why didn't anyone challenge them in court, or at least file some sort of suit and hold them publically accountable for their statements. Zealots, idjits, teachers and demicraps hate the words 'accountability and responsibility'. They feel those words can be as easily trodden upon as they want to do with the Constitution. They cannot tolerate being held publically accountable for their actions or words and this is exactly what needs be done with those people. The more often they are brought to light, the more often they, like the social diseases they are, will wither and fail. And again, if they pose a threat to the Constitution, get your danged gun and drive them out.
For every word in that previous paragraph there are at least 10 people who review these messages who would vehemently disagree. But friend, if this happens just once, whether it is successful or not, it will send the most chilling message ever to the liberals. The message is: Yes, this is a free country and you do have the right to free speech but, if in your exercise of that right your actions or proposals bring or cause harm or injury to any other citizen, whether directly or indirectly, you will be held accountable.
You know, they take us to task at every turn and we sit on our asses and just bitch about it. Lawsuits are cheap to file and immediately place the onus for innocence on those subject to the suit. The media is comprised of the type of person who spent the early part of their formative years growing up in a wicker basket and often become dog thieves, muggers, insurance salemen or newspaper reporters and they will flock to an issue of a suit against a local politician like Danny Davis in Chicago for his comments on the S&W 500, like flies to a carcass. Why in God's creation we don't stick it to them like they try and stick it to us is inconceivable. We should be smacking them around every single time they open their mouths. These people are 'paid' public servants and should be held accountable for their words and actions.
Maybe if we start taking more action they will understand that we aren't just going to sit on our butts to let them do the talking for us - they don't represent us, they represent their own concerns, not ours, and as such, I don't want them speaking for me. That would be like taking hillary's perspective on sex, and you should know by now what hypocrisy that is.
Sorry, didn't mean to spout. Mikey.
