So it is, my mistake. It's still a pretty big leap to say that holding up a gift at a campaign stop signifies a change in position, though. Frankly, I'm surprised that Drudge didn't claim that Kerry was threatening W's life.
Just a point of edification: "Semi-automatic" is a rather category large category of firearm and simply refers to the fact that when a round is fired, another round is automatically loaded into the firing chamber without any sort of separate action from person using the firearm. The difference between a semi-automatic firearm and an automatic firearm is that a semi-automatic only fires one round with one pull of the trigger and the trigger must be released and pulled again to fire another round, while an automatic will fire one round after another as long as the trigger is being pulled. The vast majority of handguns that are sold and used are semi-automatic -- you pull the trigger, they fire one round and only one round, and another round is loaded into the chamber. Were they not semi-automatic, you would have to consciously perform some action to load another round into the firing chamber after firing a round. So in other words, the word "semi-automatic" sounds a lot more ominous than it really is and knowing the proper meaning of it is a lot less to elicit rolled eyes from those of us who are gun owners.
My reason for voting for John Kerry on Nov. 2nd is that Bush has proved to me that he is incompetent as President. Kerry is unproven as president, and I will take my chances on him. Hell, I'd take my chances on a Ham Sandwich than with Bush for another 4 years.
Observation, not a complaint: I hope for your sake that you have this stored in a Word file or something so all you have to do is copy and paste because this is about the fifth I've seen you post this. Otherwise you'd get some sort of repetitive stress injury and that wouldn't be good.
Yep. Like the M-16s our troops carry, which are semi-autmatic (but have automatic settings for squeezing off multi-round bursts). But "semi-automatic" doesn't necessarily equal "assault weapon", which are fully automatics such as Uzis. That's why your corner gun shop can sell you a Mattel AR-15, but not an M-16. AR-15s don't have the automatic setting, but they are still "center-fire" weapons, and illegal for hunting in most places. Not sure if they're considered assault weapons, but I hope not because I own one. In the hands of the wrong **************, any weapon can be an "assault weapon." I thought Kerry supported the assault weapons ban (and opposed the BushCo administration's letting the current ban expire).
XaviusX: Interesting Post! You would trust an unproven guy over a proven leader? Please elaborate on your assessment of incompetence; three years of leadership by GWB, two wars, 9/11 and largest Fed gov't revision in history (homeland defense), and keeping us safe from further acts of domestic terror, establishment of Patriot Act, plus numerous economic initiatives, to include large tax cuts... where did you find incompetence? IntheNet Bush/Cheney in 2004
He's a co-sponsor of S.1431, which goes quite a bit farther than just merely reauthorizing the "assault weapons" ban.
The fact that he led us into an unjustifiable war in Iraq which has needlessly taken the lives of over 1,000 of our brave men & women in uniform. He has failed to help institute the appropriate regulations for the Private sector so that our economy can grow. There's been over a million people who have are in Poverty since this Administration has been in office and millions more have lost their jobs and are without healthcare. The Surplus that the almighty Clinton Administration has blessed us with, has been shot to the ground after GWB has taken office. I can go on and on and on. He makes the same empty promises he made when he ran for President in 2000, so why should I take my chances on a man who's done nothing beneficial these past 4 years??? The only thing this 'leader' has proven, is that a great country such us ours can give even the most Fascist Idiots the chance to run the #1 Industrialized Nation in the World!
...First, back in October 2002 when the polls showed large public support, Mr. Kerry voted for the war. "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein," he said in one of the early Democratic debates. "And when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." But then Howard Dean rose in the polls as the antiwar candidate, and Mr. Kerry suddenly turned against the war too. "Are you one of the anti-war candidates?" asked Chris Matthews back in January on MSNBC's "Hardball." Mr. Kerry: "I am -- Yes..." Or at least he was until he routed Mr. Dean, when he became prowar once again. Throughout the spring he vowed to stay the course, saying in April that "it would be unwise beyond belief for the United States of America to leave a failed Iraq in its wake." His positions were so close to Mr. Bush's that pundits were suggesting Iraq wouldn't be an issue in the fall. Only last month, Mr. Kerry declared that even knowing everything he knows now about events in Iraq, "yes, I would have voted for the authority" of President Bush to wage war. ...His latest line is that Iraq is "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time," and that he would have done "everything differently" from Mr. Bush.... Mr. Kerry is even reviving the old liberal isolationist line that money spent fighting our enemies in Iraq should be better spent at home. "$200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford after-school programs for our children.... We're not the only ones who've noticed that Mr. Kerry's statements on Iraq aren't so much "nuanced" as simply irreconcilable.... source
I remember reading several years ago that gun manufacturers have their own organization, and it's apparently not nearly as radical as the NRA. I believe they're less resistant to waiting periods, gun locks, etc. Can anyone vouch for me on this?