On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:41:07 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:25:00 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>> George Leppla wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 7/17/2011 2:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>>>> I suppose you're talking about gun nuts "rights".
>>>>> No, I'm talking about gun owners constitutional rights as well as the
>>>>> inaliable human right of self defense.
>>>>
>>>> So who is denying you your rights to own a gun?
>>>
>>> Ask the folks in CA, IL, NY, CT, NJ and a few other states where peoples
>>> constitutional rights are indeed being trampled.
>>
>> what the **** are you talking about?
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#Calif ornia>
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#Illin ois>
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#New_Y ork>
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#Conne cticut>
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#New_J ersey>
>>
>> i see no bans on guns. once again, you are full of shit.
>
> Clearly you haven't read your own cite. Try searching that page for
> "ban" and you will find plenty of references such as:
>
> "Illegal to possess, import, or purchase assault weapons and .50 BMG
> rifles, unless such weapons were acquired by the owner prior to June 1,
> 1989. Legally defined assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles listed by make
> and model by the DOJ must be registered. Their sale and transfer is
> prohibited. Military look-alike rifles that are not chambered for .50
> BMG and are not on the DOJ roster are legal to purchase or possess, with
> some restrictions in configuration€”known as "banned features." "

not being able to own an 'assault weapon' does not equal 'taking away your
guns.'

blake