We want our rifles back

[Webzpider]

We Want Our Rifles Back!
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/06/25/libbelles.htm
By Jennifer Freeman
The United States government is denying the request of law-abiding

citizens

to buy back military surplus M14s citing international agreements that

would

make such a program, "problematic."
We can only presume that the referred agreement was made during the United
Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons in
All its Aspects in July 2001. As referenced in a follow up article on
NewsMax, "Members also agreed to place special emphasis on post-conflict
situations, to destroy illicit or surplus weapons as necessary, and to act
responsibly in export, import, transit and retransfer of weapons." Also
suggested at the conference was, "'voluntary' collection of small arms and
the confiscation of "illegal" weapons."
Needless to say, this type of agreement with the United Nations or other
foreign entity poses a serious threat to the citizens and the sovereignty

of

the United States of America. As citizens we have the God-given right to
keep and bear arms to defend ourselves and to preserve this nation in the
event of a foreign governmental installation (i.e., tyranny). These rights
are documented and recognized in our Second Amendment of the Bill of

Rights.

It was the law-abiding, taxpaying citizens of the United States of America
that purchased these firearms for our military's use. And the law-abiding,
taxpaying citizens should have the option of buying these firearms back

from

the government. The government being by the people, of the people, and for
the people. It is not up to the United Nations to determine whether or not
American citizens should have the option of retaining what is rightfully
ours.
We must also presume that attempts to ban semi-automatic rifles,

incorrectly

dubbed "assault weapons" is a further attempt of certain politicians to

make

progress in achieving the U.N.'s goal of total disarmament.
Clearly politicians who introduce and support U.N. disarmament programs do
not recognize the people of the United States as citizens whose God-given
rights are acknowledged by the U.S. Constitution - the law of the land.
Rather, they view us as subjects who have no rights and whose opinions are
of no consequence. This is evidenced in the continual introduction of
gun-ban legislation year after year with no regard whatsoever for the

safety

and sovereignty of the American people.
It is time, therefore, for gun owners to inform President Bush of our
position on this and related issues. We encourage you to write to

President

1. United States citizens do not report to the United Nations and we do

not

recognize any agreements that would supercede our Constitutional Rights.
Considering that the United Nations is devoted to total disarmament, we
recommend that the United States terminate its participation in the United
Nations. As such we support the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of
2003 - H.R. 1146.
1. The term "assault weapon" is erroneous in its reference to

semi-automatic

rifles - Rifles of the type that have been commercially available since
1896. These rifles fire one round for every single pull of the trigger. As
such we support the Sunset of the "Assault Weapons" ban. And, we oppose

any

additional or continuing restrictions on semi-automatic rifles including

S.

1034, H.R. 143, and H.R. 2038.
1. We support a civilian buy back program that would allow law-abiding
citizens to purchase military surplus firearms, including the M14, despite
what dismay this may cause the United Nations.
President George W. Bush The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20500
202-456-1111 or 202-456-1414
Fax: [phone]
80 million angry gun owners is more problematic than breaking an
anti-Constitutional agreement with the U.N.
Liberty Belles
http://www.libertybelles.org/

80 million angry gun-nuts sounds responsible and balanced enough
to possess semi-automatic assault weapons - NOT !

If you consider yourselves so "law-abiding", what the heck do you
need assault weapons for?
And why stop with the M14? Why not demand to buy back tanks and
howitzers? IBM's?

Webzpider

[Larry Jandro]

Post by Webzpider
80 million angry gun-nuts sounds responsible and balanced enough
to possess semi-automatic assault weapons - NOT !
If you consider yourselves so "law-abiding", what the heck do you
need assault weapons for?
And why stop with the M14? Why not demand to buy back tanks and
howitzers? IBM's?

M14's are not "assault weapons," dork.

[Little John]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:52:30 GMT, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity, once
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"Webzpider" <***@re.superior.nu> two-fingered to all:

|>
|>"MLSRM" <***@gvtcNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
|>news:e7b9b.468$***@eagle.america.net...
|>> We Want Our Rifles Back!
|>> http://www.sierratimes.com/03/06/25/libbelles.htm
|>>
|>> By Jennifer Freeman
|>>
|>> The United States government is denying the request of law-abiding
|>citizens
|>> to buy back military surplus M14s citing international agreements that
|>would
|>> make such a program, "problematic."
|>>
|>> We can only presume that the referred agreement was made during the United
|>> Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons in
|>> All its Aspects in July 2001. As referenced in a follow up article on
|>> NewsMax, "Members also agreed to place special emphasis on post-conflict
|>> situations, to destroy illicit or surplus weapons as necessary, and to act
|>> responsibly in export, import, transit and retransfer of weapons." Also
|>> suggested at the conference was, "'voluntary' collection of small arms and
|>> the confiscation of "illegal" weapons."
|>>
|>> Needless to say, this type of agreement with the United Nations or other
|>> foreign entity poses a serious threat to the citizens and the sovereignty
|>of
|>> the United States of America. As citizens we have the God-given right to
|>> keep and bear arms to defend ourselves and to preserve this nation in the
|>> event of a foreign governmental installation (i.e., tyranny). These rights
|>> are documented and recognized in our Second Amendment of the Bill of
|>Rights.
|>>
|>> It was the law-abiding, taxpaying citizens of the United States of America
|>> that purchased these firearms for our military's use. And the law-abiding,
|>> taxpaying citizens should have the option of buying these firearms back
|>from
|>> the government. The government being by the people, of the people, and for
|>> the people. It is not up to the United Nations to determine whether or not
|>> American citizens should have the option of retaining what is rightfully
|>> ours.
|>>
|>> We must also presume that attempts to ban semi-automatic rifles,
|>incorrectly
|>> dubbed "assault weapons" is a further attempt of certain politicians to
|>make
|>> progress in achieving the U.N.'s goal of total disarmament.
|>>
|>> Clearly politicians who introduce and support U.N. disarmament programs do
|>> not recognize the people of the United States as citizens whose God-given
|>> rights are acknowledged by the U.S. Constitution - the law of the land.
|>> Rather, they view us as subjects who have no rights and whose opinions are
|>> of no consequence. This is evidenced in the continual introduction of
|>> gun-ban legislation year after year with no regard whatsoever for the
|>safety
|>> and sovereignty of the American people.
|>>
|>> It is time, therefore, for gun owners to inform President Bush of our
|>> position on this and related issues. We encourage you to write to
|>President
|>> Bush and advise him of the following:
|>>
|>> 1. United States citizens do not report to the United Nations and we do
|>not
|>> recognize any agreements that would supercede our Constitutional Rights.
|>> Considering that the United Nations is devoted to total disarmament, we
|>> recommend that the United States terminate its participation in the United
|>> Nations. As such we support the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of
|>> 2003 - H.R. 1146.
|>>
|>> 1. The term "assault weapon" is erroneous in its reference to
|>semi-automatic
|>> rifles - Rifles of the type that have been commercially available since
|>> 1896. These rifles fire one round for every single pull of the trigger. As
|>> such we support the Sunset of the "Assault Weapons" ban. And, we oppose
|>any
|>> additional or continuing restrictions on semi-automatic rifles including
|>S.
|>> 1034, H.R. 143, and H.R. 2038.
|>>
|>> 1. We support a civilian buy back program that would allow law-abiding
|>> citizens to purchase military surplus firearms, including the M14, despite
|>> what dismay this may cause the United Nations.
|>>
|>> Remember to send your letter to:
|>>
|>> President George W. Bush The White House
|>> 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20500
|>> 202-456-1111 or 202-456-1414
|>> Fax: [phone]
|>>
|>> 80 million angry gun owners is more problematic than breaking an
|>> anti-Constitutional agreement with the U.N.
|>>
|>> Liberty Belles
|>> http://www.libertybelles.org/
|>>
|>
|>80 million angry gun-nuts sounds responsible and balanced enough
|>to possess semi-automatic assault weapons - NOT !

Like your opinion counts.

|>If you consider yourselves so "law-abiding", what the heck do you
|>need assault weapons for?

What assault weapons?

|>And why stop with the M14? Why not demand to buy back tanks and
|>howitzers?

We can buy those.

IBM's?

Who'd want old government computers? They suck!

|>
|>Webzpider

You've got a strange way of spelling "idjit".


jammin1-at-jammin1-dot-com

jammin1's Resources
www.jammin1.com

[Ken Ehrett]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:52:30 GMT, "Webzpider"

Post by Webzpider
80 million angry gun-nuts sounds responsible and balanced enough
to possess semi-automatic assault weapons - NOT !

It would be against better judgement to allow an idiot like you to
possess a metal fork but I would not deny your right to own one if you
have never committed a crime with it.

Post by Webzpider
If you consider yourselves so "law-abiding", what the heck do you
need assault weapons for?

There are valid reasons why I might need such a weapon but that is
really not the issue at all. You don't really "need" indoor plumbing
and in your case you probably don't have it anyway but you don't have
the right to decide what other people need and don't need, dipshit.
This concept is called freedom and if I decide I want an assault
rifle, fully automatic or otherwise, to defend both myself and
country then I have a right to do so. If a shit heel like you had the
power to decide what people really "need" then we'd all be living in a
pup tent, issued one blanket and a bowl of gruel per day. But of
course I have an assault rifle so you won't ever be in a position to
make those decisions for me.

Post by Webzpider
And why stop with the M14? Why not demand to buy back tanks and
howitzers? IBM's?

We already have that right as well.

[Maddog]

Post by Webzpider
80 million angry gun-nuts sounds responsible and balanced enough
to possess semi-automatic assault weapons - NOT !
If you consider yourselves so "law-abiding", what the heck do you
need assault weapons for?
And why stop with the M14? Why not demand to buy back tanks and
howitzers? IBM's?
Webzpider

Because they are an excellent rifle for target shooting. They are an
excellent rifle for using in military rifle competition target shooting.
They are just plain fun to shoot and because my tax dollars payed for
them in the first place and because its my natural right.

[Larry Jandro]

Post by Maddog
Because they are an excellent rifle for target shooting. They
are an excellent rifle for using in military rifle competition
target shooting. They are just plain fun to shoot and because my
tax dollars payed for them in the first place and because its my
natural right.

Ted Kennedy's automobile has killed more people than my guns.

[Webzpider]

Post by Larry Jandro

Post by Maddog
Because they are an excellent rifle for target shooting. They
are an excellent rifle for using in military rifle competition
target shooting. They are just plain fun to shoot and because my
tax dollars payed for them in the first place and because its my
natural right.

Ted Kennedy's automobile has killed more people than my guns.

True... And a good point.
So why aren't the protect ourselves from ourselves socialist assholes
trying to ban cars?

Cars are unfortunately to some extent rather necessary, guns are fucking
useless.

Cars kill more people in the USA in one year than
die from guns in multiple years.

You make it sound like a bad thing.

And while we're at it lets ban
cigarettes and alcohol too - oh wait - that's been tried - that didn't
work either.

If you want to drink and smoke yourself to death, be my guest as long
as you pay the booze and tobacco taxes.

Webzpider

[Neal Atkins]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:30:31 GMT, "Webzpider"

Post by Webzpider

True... And a good point.
So why aren't the protect ourselves from ourselves socialist assholes
trying to ban cars?

Cars are unfortunately to some extent rather necessary, guns are fucking
useless.

Yah. You should ask your foreign minister. Oh, that's right you
can't. She's DEAD. Some asshole knifed her to death. But she isn't
as dead as she would have been if she had been killed with a gun,
isn't that right netbug?

[Webzpider]

Post by Neal Atkins
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:30:31 GMT, "Webzpider"

Post by Webzpider

True... And a good point.
So why aren't the protect ourselves from ourselves socialist assholes
trying to ban cars?

Cars are unfortunately to some extent rather necessary, guns are fucking
useless.

Yah. You should ask your foreign minister. Oh, that's right you
can't. She's DEAD. Some asshole knifed her to death. But she isn't
as dead as she would have been if she had been killed with a gun,
isn't that right netbug?

If the killer have had a gun, there would probably had been more than one
victim, the place was rather crowded, it's always easier to instantly
kill several people with a gun than with a knife.

She didn't have a lifeguard, but it wouldn't helped her if she have had
one if the killer had been armed with a gun.
A resolute gunman will always hit his target.
(see Reagan and John Hinckley Jr).

Webzpider

[CH]

Post by Webzpider

Post by Neal Atkins
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:30:31 GMT, "Webzpider"

Post by Webzpider

True... And a good point.
So why aren't the protect ourselves from ourselves socialist
assholes trying to ban cars?

Cars are unfortunately to some extent rather necessary, guns are
fucking useless.

Yah. You should ask your foreign minister. Oh, that's right you
can't. She's DEAD. Some asshole knifed her to death. But she isn't
as dead as she would have been if she had been killed with a gun,
isn't that right netbug?

If the killer have had a gun, there would probably had been more than
one victim, the place was rather crowded, it's always easier to
instantly
kill several people with a gun than with a knife.

If you Swedish had any guts the first time she ran someone would have shot
the attacker (Oh sorry that would mean someone carrying a gun) or at least
tripped him. Sad commentary on your country when you have a "popular"
politician knifed to death in a crowded mall while your subservient
countrymen stand around with their thumbs up their ass wondering who else is
going to save her.

Post by Webzpider
She didn't have a lifeguard, but it wouldn't helped her if she have
had one if the killer had been armed with a gun.
A resolute gunman will always hit his target.
(see Reagan and John Hinckley Jr).

She could have protected herself, she had plenty of time to evade and deploy
but you don't live in that kind of society right? Like sheep to the
slaughter....how sad.

[Broadway]

Post by CH
If you Swedish had any guts the first time she ran someone would have shot
the attacker (Oh sorry that would mean someone carrying a gun) or at least
tripped him. Sad commentary on your country when you have a "popular"
politician knifed to death in a crowded mall while your subservient
countrymen stand around with their thumbs up their ass wondering who else is
going to save her.

But if 'The King and Queen' walked by, these monkeys would definetely pull
their thumbs out of their asses to salute.
Do the 'King' and 'Queen' get a piece of that Ikea dough?
_________________________________________________

[Larry Jandro]

Post by Webzpider
She didn't have a lifeguard, but it wouldn't helped her if she
have had one if the killer had been armed with a gun.
A resolute gunman will always hit his target.
(see Reagan and John Hinckley Jr).

President Reagan didn't die, even though his attacker used a gun.

[Morton Davis]

Post by Webzpider

Post by Neal Atkins
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:30:31 GMT, "Webzpider"

Post by Webzpider

True... And a good point.
So why aren't the protect ourselves from ourselves socialist assholes
trying to ban cars?

Cars are unfortunately to some extent rather necessary, guns are fucking
useless.

Yah. You should ask your foreign minister. Oh, that's right you
can't. She's DEAD. Some asshole knifed her to death. But she isn't
as dead as she would have been if she had been killed with a gun,
isn't that right netbug?

If the killer have had a gun, there would probably had been more than one
victim, the place was rather crowded, it's always easier to instantly
kill several people with a gun than with a knife.

Gee, like the guy in Australia who just did three dead and three critically
wounded with a knife? Or like the janitor in Japan who did over 20 with a
knife?

-*MORT*-

[Cole Firearms Inc.]

Post by Webzpider

Post by Webzpider

Post by Neal Atkins
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:30:31 GMT, "Webzpider"

Post by Webzpider

True... And a good point.
So why aren't the protect ourselves from ourselves socialist assholes
trying to ban cars?

Cars are unfortunately to some extent rather necessary, guns are

fucking

Post by Webzpider

Post by Neal Atkins

Post by Webzpider
useless.

Yah. You should ask your foreign minister. Oh, that's right you
can't. She's DEAD. Some asshole knifed her to death. But she isn't
as dead as she would have been if she had been killed with a gun,
isn't that right netbug?

If the killer have had a gun, there would probably had been more than one
victim, the place was rather crowded, it's always easier to instantly
kill several people with a gun than with a knife.

Gee, like the guy in Australia who just did three dead and three critically
wounded with a knife? Or like the janitor in Japan who did over 20 with a
knife?
-*MORT*-

using democratic logic, we need to ban Knives.

[Asmodeus]

Post by Cole Firearms Inc.
using democratic logic, we need to ban Knives

Don't forget baseball bats. Screwdrivers. Cars. All just
magically come to life and kill people.

[Little John]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 01:03:39 GMT, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity, once
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"Webzpider" <***@re.superior.nu> two-fingered to all:

|>
|>"Neal Atkins" <***@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
|>news:***@news-server.austin.rr.com...
|>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:30:31 GMT, "Webzpider"
|>> <***@re.superior.nu> wrote:
|>>
|>> >> True... And a good point.
|>> >>
|>> >> So why aren't the protect ourselves from ourselves socialist assholes
|>> >> trying to ban cars?
|>> >
|>> >Cars are unfortunately to some extent rather necessary, guns are fucking
|>> >useless.
|>>
|>> Yah. You should ask your foreign minister. Oh, that's right you
|>> can't. She's DEAD. Some asshole knifed her to death. But she isn't
|>> as dead as she would have been if she had been killed with a gun,
|>> isn't that right netbug?
|>
|>If the killer have had a gun, there would probably had been more than one
|>victim, the place was rather crowded, it's always easier to instantly
|>kill several people with a gun than with a knife.
|>
|>She didn't have a lifeguard, but it wouldn't helped her if she have had
|>one if the killer had been armed with a gun.
|>A resolute gunman will always hit his target.
|>(see Reagan and John Hinckley Jr).

So will a resolute knife user, sfb.

Pop quiz:

What weapon goes right through a "bullet proof" vest?

A knife!


jammin1-at-jammin1-dot-com

jammin1's Resources
www.jammin1.com

[Asmodeus]

Post by Little John
What weapon goes right through a "bullet proof" vest?
A knife!

And you're expecting him to get it?

[Larry Jandro]

Post by Webzpider
Cars are unfortunately to some extent rather necessary, guns are
fucking useless.

True, they are useless for fucking, unless you've got a little kinky
thing going...

[Little John]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:30:31 GMT, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity, once
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"Webzpider" <***@re.superior.nu> two-fingered to all:

|>
|>"Maddog" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
|>news:***@nowhere.com...
|>> Larry Jandro wrote:
|>> > On 21 Sep 2003, Maddog <***@nowhere.com> tapped on a keyboard
|>> > and the electrons formed this:
|>> >
|>> >
|>> >>Because they are an excellent rifle for target shooting. They
|>> >>are an excellent rifle for using in military rifle competition
|>> >>target shooting. They are just plain fun to shoot and because my
|>> >>tax dollars payed for them in the first place and because its my
|>> >>natural right.
|>> >
|>> >
|>> > Ted Kennedy's automobile has killed more people than my guns.
|>> >
|>>
|>> True... And a good point.
|>>
|>> So why aren't the protect ourselves from ourselves socialist assholes
|>> trying to ban cars?
|>
|>Cars are unfortunately to some extent rather necessary, guns are fucking
|>useless.

Says you, victim in training.


jammin1-at-jammin1-dot-com

jammin1's Resources
www.jammin1.com

[Little John]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:22:14 GMT, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity, once
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard, Maddog
<***@nowhere.com> two-fingered to all:

|>Webzpider wrote:
|>
|>> 80 million angry gun-nuts sounds responsible and balanced enough
|>> to possess semi-automatic assault weapons - NOT !
|>>
|>> If you consider yourselves so "law-abiding", what the heck do you
|>> need assault weapons for?
|>> And why stop with the M14? Why not demand to buy back tanks and
|>> howitzers? IBM's?
|>>
|>> Webzpider
|>>
|>>
|>
|>Because they are an excellent rifle for target shooting. They are an
|>excellent rifle for using in military rifle competition target shooting.
|>They are just plain fun to shoot and because my tax dollars payed for
|>them in the first place and because its my natural right.

You left out the part about them being pretty good for light game too.


jammin1-at-jammin1-dot-com

jammin1's Resources
www.jammin1.com

[Maddog]

Post by Little John
You left out the part about them being pretty good for light game too.

LOL!
No I didn't. I'm not a hunter - self defense and target shooting only.
But each to his own and I don't have a thing against those that do hunt.
FWIW I imagine that a round shot out of an M-14 would take down most
anything one could hunt in North America - maybe two for a Grizzly or
really big Moose.

[Webzpider]

Post by Maddog

Post by Little John
You left out the part about them being pretty good for light game too.

LOL!
No I didn't. I'm not a hunter - self defense and target shooting only.
But each to his own and I don't have a thing against those that do hunt.
FWIW I imagine that a round shot out of an M-14 would take down most
anything one could hunt in North America - maybe two for a Grizzly or
really big Moose.

OK then..........maybe they aren't too bad since Americans use them to kill
each other... often over comical misunderstandings.

It is also nice when Americans blow there own chubby heads off as a
result of realising how fat and stupid they are.

Webzpider

[Little John]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:17:28 GMT, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity, once
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"Webzpider" <***@re.superior.nu> two-fingered to all:

|>
|>"Maddog" <***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
|>news:***@nowhere.com...
|>> Little John wrote:
|>>
|>> > You left out the part about them being pretty good for light game too.
|>> >
|>>
|>> LOL!
|>> No I didn't. I'm not a hunter - self defense and target shooting only.
|>> But each to his own and I don't have a thing against those that do hunt.
|>> FWIW I imagine that a round shot out of an M-14 would take down most
|>> anything one could hunt in North America - maybe two for a Grizzly or
|>> really big Moose.
|>>
|>
|>
|>OK then..........maybe they aren't too bad since Americans use them to kill
|>each other... often over comical misunderstandings.
|>
|>It is also nice when Americans blow there own chubby heads off as a
|>result of realising how fat and stupid they are.

If you really want to see an American grow all despondent and get suicidal, tell
him he has to come live with you.


jammin1-at-jammin1-dot-com

jammin1's Resources
www.jammin1.com

[Maddog]

Post by Webzpider
OK then..........maybe they aren't too bad since Americans use them to kill
each other... often over comical misunderstandings.
It is also nice when Americans blow there own chubby heads off as a
result of realising how fat and stupid they are.
Webzpider

ROFLMAO...
You're so funny. Guys like you with no intellect always are. Too bad the
days of the court jester are no more. You'd have made a wonderful fool
for some despotic monarch.

[Broadway]

Post by Maddog
ROFLMAO...
You're so funny. Guys like you with no intellect always are. Too bad the
days of the court jester are no more. You'd have made a wonderful fool
for some despotic monarch.

He does pretty good here.
_________________________________________________

[Little John]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:47:09 GMT, in a fit of unbridled digital verbosity, once
again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard, Maddog
<***@nowhere.com> two-fingered to all:

|>Little John wrote:
|>
|>> You left out the part about them being pretty good for light game too.
|>>
|>
|>LOL!
|>No I didn't. I'm not a hunter - self defense and target shooting only.
|>But each to his own and I don't have a thing against those that do hunt.
|>FWIW I imagine that a round shot out of an M-14 would take down most
|>anything one could hunt in North America - maybe two for a Grizzly or
|>really big Moose.

Maybe 3 or 4 for a grizzly. They're pretty tough. Might take two for a decent
elk too.


jammin1-at-jammin1-dot-com

jammin1's Resources
www.jammin1.com

[Larry Jandro]

Post by Little John
Maybe 3 or 4 for a grizzly. They're pretty tough. Might take
two for a decent elk too.

Right. The M14 fires standard NATO 7.62mm, which is 30 cal.
ammunition. Not exactly high-power, big-bore stuff.