ANITA - FOR YOU. You asked about gun control issues in the campaign : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

A while back, you asked me to post references to gun control being quietly phased out of the Dem's strategy. Since I'm not the researcher you are (who is?), I waited until I found a new article on it.

Here you go.

I had read several like this prior to posted that reply to the prior thread. They all read like this one.

-- no one here (-@-.-), October 20, 2000


I don't remember asking for that, but I probably did. I've never found the Democratic platform to include banning guns or extreme measures of gun control, despite what that loud, heavy woman with an afternoon celebrity talk show might desire. Personally, I agree pretty much with the Democratic Platform on Guns. For instance, I don't think anyone needs a high-powered assault weapon, and I don't think anyone needs cop-killer bullets. I think the NRA has fought hard to make guns an issue between the two parties, and they're itchin' to have that office in the White House that they bragged about not so long ago.

Thanks for the article, but for the life of me, I can't remember when guns were a big strategy item for the Dems. Of course every party has "wingers", and I may have missed comments from the Democratic wingers.

-- Anita (, October 20, 2000.


Anita, will you please let us know what a low power assault weapon is? One of the things I really hate about the debate on gun control is that so much of the arguments are based on ignorance.

The high power assault weapons (or what you think are high power assault weapons) are actually fairly low powered rifles. In many states you cant hunt with them because the caliber is to low. Most rifles that people use to hunt deer, elk, etc are far more powerful then what the press labels as a high power assault weapon. In fact they are less powerful then the 30-06 caliber rifles that the US used in WW II and Korea. The reason they were adopted by the armed services has more to do with the weight of the rifles, the amount of ammo a solider can carry, and lots of other characteristics. Not the power of the ammo.

As for cop killer bullets that is another ignorance based argument. Most rifle bullets (i.e. ammo) can penetrate any bullet proof vest. The reason the NRA was against legislation (some years back) that would have banned all bullets capable of penetrating a bullet proof vest is because it would have had the effect of outlawing almost all rifle ammunition and ending hunting in the US. SWAT teams do have vests with a chest protector plate that is metal or ceramic that can stop rifle calibers up to 308 but they are far to heavy to be worn all the time. The supposed argument over cop killer bullets was due to NBC doing a story on supposed Teflon covered bullets (which has nothing to do with the bullets ability to penetrate a vest). What was banned was any handgun ammo that could be used to penetrate a bullet proof vest. Very few crimes are committed with rifles.

-- The Engineer (, October 20, 2000.

"Anita, will you please let us know what a low power assault weapon is? One of the things I really hate about the debate on gun control is that so much of the arguments are based on ignorance."

You've certainly described ME here, Engineer. When *I* think of assault weapons, I think of UZI's and machine guns. I consider "normal" guns to be revolvers, shotguns, etc. I'm, personally, opposed to plastic weaponry, simply because it can go undetected through the mechanisms currently available at airports and schools.

Now, having said this, I'm NO evangelist on gun-control. I think it's prudent to have three-day waiting periods, background checks, etc. I even like the idea of demonstrating appropriate gun safety measures before approval. Most liberals I know [which would include most everyone I know] don't give any thought at all to gun stuff. Some have guns. Some don't have guns. None of them think others should be denied the right to have guns.

-- Anita (, October 20, 2000.


I'm, personally, opposed to plastic weaponry, simply because it can go undetected through the mechanisms currently available at airports and schools.

There is no gun, zero, zip, zilch, nada, that can go undetected by metal detectors. Again that argument is based on ignorance. Glocks were the first guns in this country to have polymer frames. The media, in its ignorance didnt understand that only the frame was plastic and the rest of the gun had more then enough metal to be detected.

I dont care if you are pro or anti gun and Im not trying to convert you. What I do care about is that your arguments are based on what you believe to be true rather then on true knowledge. Arguments should be based on facts. Not what you believe, think, or wish the facts to be. That was what Y2K was all about (you sure you were on our side?).

One can make the argument that the three day waiting period may prevent impulse suicides or in the spur of the moment killings. One can make the counter argument that they prevent people from obtaining guns to protect themselves when they need them. There is enough anecdotal evidence behind each argument. I dont know how much proof either one actually has. A lot of predictions ( by anti-gun organizations) such as allowing more people to have CCW permits would cause wide spread killings has turned out not to be true.

If you are opposed to something at the very least that something should be true.

-- The Engineer (, October 20, 2000.


As I understand it, a "plastic" gun still has enough metal to be picked up on the metal detectors used by schools and airports. The bullets alone should be enouh metal.

Also, I must take issue with Al Gore's gun agenda proposal to license handgun buyers with a photo id, under the heading, "GETTING GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS". Can't you just see all of the gang-bangers discussing the fact that they should turn in their guns since they don't have a photo id?

I can't.

Maybe Al Gore's grand plan is to ultimately outlaw handguns. Then with the photo id list of handgun purchasers (now criminals), he can claim, as they go down the list confiscating your gun, that he is "GETTING GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS".

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 20, 2000.


I've already SAID I was ignorant regarding guns. I approached the topic on Poole's forum of plastic guns, because *I* didn't understand how the bullets [at the least] wouldn't be able to detected. I then learned that there are high-impact plastic bullets and ceramic bullets. It's not so much what's available TODAY, but what will be available TOMORROW that worries me regarding the plastic/ceramic stuff and the detectors.

Anyway, I'll let you folks who know your stuff continue on this thread.

J: I understand that's a concern of yours.

-- Anita (, October 20, 2000.

What is IGNORANT and pure STUPIDITY is this. George W. Bush is against trigger locks.

We have warnings on freaking dish soap, but this extremist nutcase is against a damn safety control on a product designed to do one thing,,,,kill people. Does this indicate Presidential timber? or even someone awake?

As the guy from said, it boggles the mind to think a Dubya even in a Presidential Race.

-- Doc Paulie (, October 20, 2000.

Doc Paulie,

Would you care to back up your claim that George W. Bush is against trigger locks?

Either you are CONFUSED, or you are TRYING TO CONFUSE others. G.W. Bush is not against trigger locks. In fact, in Texas, they GIVE AWAY trigger locks. G.W. Bush is against MANDATORY use of trigger locks.

I can't think of much else that would be as IGNORANT or as full of pure STUPIDITY as to be killed by a home intruder while you fumbled with the key to your trigger lock.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 20, 2000.

How does Dumbo feel about Gunnns????? here ya go.

See George NOW is in support of trigger locks. Claims he has always been so(lol). The catch? Yep the taxpayer has to pay for them. But guess what Freedom Lovers? You get to decide if ya want them. So like most Republican schemes, others pay and you keep control to yourself, or at least you get to think so.

And to save time NRA meme-bers, George supports all the laws currently on the books, including Brady. Oh he don't like it, but can live with it. Now how do you feel? betrayed?

In other related news...the Moonies(Washington Times) have joined WorldNetDaily, Maria and CPR in their support of the Dubya. Is this fun or what? WhahahahaWhoohehehehhahaha.

-- Doc Paulie (, October 20, 2000.


There are rubber bullets that the police use to help quell riots. Supposedly they are non-lethal if shot beyond 10 yards or so but can be lethal at close range (like blanks). They are fired from rifles not handguns. As for ceramic bullets I cant see the cost of making them justify any wide spread use or need. They would also be extremely brittle. Not the best thing for a bullet. Maybe if the CIA needs an undetectable gun and ammo but I cant think why most people would want one. I seem to remember a Clint Eastwood movie where the villain had a ceramic gun and bullets. But it was a movie.

There is always something new coming. Are you terminally afraid of the future? Actually I wouldnt mind a photo ID and such if it allowed me to carry my gun across state lines. Tit for tat so to speak.


I have to agree with Js criticism. There is a difference between making locks available and making them mandatory. I can see why someone with young children in the house would want them but I dont have any so why should I have to have mandatory locks? As for putting the lock on the gun itself. To say they are cumbersome and dont work a good deal of the time is an understatement. There is a difference between making something available and making it mandatory. Actually the best lock is to get a piece of plastic sheathed cable with a loop at each end. Run it through the barrel and lock the two ends together. Of course the cable can always be cut but the idea is to make it hard, not impossible.

As for GWB being a moron. I dont think hes as stupid as the media portrays him to be and AG isnt as smart. You cant be stupid and fly a jet plane. Even in the National Guard. I think all you have to do is look at how the media portrayed DDE vs. how they portrayed JFK and you see how it works.

-- The Engineer (, October 20, 2000.

Maybe Al Gore's grand plan is to ultimately outlaw handguns. Then with the photo id list of handgun purchasers (now criminals), he can claim, as they go down the list confiscating your gun, that he is "GETTING GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS".

and THAT is what drives not only the Gun Issue, but George W. Bush's total platform of whiners. He runs against the Great Evil, the Gumbit. Hell Dumbo would have you believe the last eight years have resulted in a living hell of oppression. Well where the hell is it Georgie girl?

What one "hates", one creates in one's life. I hope the Dittoheads like what they have created.

-- Doc Paulie (, October 20, 2000.

Trigger locks are worthless. Most guns can be operated WITH THE LOCK IN PLACE. Alternatively, it only takes a few moments with a small pry- bar to remove one. Proper storage of all guns not in use is the only real solution. "Smart guns" (AAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!) and locks don't make the grade.

Other points (previously covered):

1) "Cop killer bullets: don't exist. Media hype.

2) "Assault rifles": are selective-fire weapons (full auto OR single shot). These are not readily available to the civilian market.

3) Plastic guns: Another media "headline" that isn't real.

One only has to look at what Anita said in order to understand how easy it is to fool the ignorant (no offense!) on these matters. HCI and VPC have been spewing out fake stats for years. The socialist media are only too willing to promulgate this crap to the masses. If our fundamental civil rights weren't at stake here, it'd be a really entertaining thing to watch these exchanges.

But the bottom line is quite simple: the Second Amendment wasn't written for hunters and sportsmen. Keep that in mind during these little hissy-fits.

And Anita, you can't pass "pre-emptive legislation" to cover FUTURE developments and inventions. As much as I respect your intelligence, I'm actually horrified at your ignorant acceptance of the "party line" on these issues. You, more than most, I would expect to do your own research.

The government does NOT have the right to demand the death of myself and/or my family at the hands of criminals in order to enforce "the public good".

-- no one here (-@-._), October 20, 2000.


I'm not "terminally" afraid of the future, but I realize how quickly new items become mainstream. I'll be teaching in the next year or so, and I'd like to have a comfortable feeling about detectors eliminating guns from the schools.

I've read the reports about the rubber and plastic bullets. They don't comfort me. One example

-- Anita (, October 20, 2000.

And for the record, there was a Supreme Court decision (US vs. Haney, 1968), which explicitly stated that convicted felons have no obligation to license or register ANY illegal firearm they posess, and cannot be prosecuted for it. This is because they are entitled to protection under the Fifth Amendment, against self-incrimination.

Now, what are those registration and licensing laws supposed to accomplish again...? Oh yeah, to GET GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS.

Anyone else see the catch-22 here?

-- no one here (-@-.-), October 20, 2000.

Are the Taxpayers of Texas given the "option" of mandatory or voluntary on the issue of who pays for Trigger Locks? Can one just decide not to pay, op-out as it were.

-- Doc Paulie (, October 20, 2000.

So Anita, you're going to be working in a "free-kill", er, um, "gun free" zone?

Hope your life insurance is paid up. If I remember correctly, Israel had a major problem years ago, with terrorists attacking their schools and killing children. They mandated that teachers carry weapons, and the attacks promptly stopped, never to resume.

Gee, who'd a thunk it...?

-- no one here (-@-.-), October 20, 2000.

No one here:

Machine guns and uzi's are available to the mainstream. My ex- husband had them. The only information available on the net regarding how plastic guns cannot be all plastic and bullets cannot be plastic is published by the NRA. Now, the NRA DID support a bill that stated that a gun MUST have a certain percentage of metal within it, and for that I DO honor them.

-- Anita (, October 20, 2000.

Doc Paulie,

I must again ask you to back up one of your claims.

Do you have any evidence that George W. Bush was ever against trigger locks?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 20, 2000.

The Engineer,

In the movie with the plastic gun, the two bullets were snuck past the metal detector disguised as cuff links, if I remember it right.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 20, 2000.


Congratulations on teaching. I really doubt that you have to worry about you students having ceramic bullets. Getting hurt in a car crash driving to work is more realistic. And despite all of the publicity the violence level in schools has been declining not increasing. Plastic bullets are a very specialized type of ammo. I doubt also if any of you future pupils will have them. And as I said they can kill, just like blanks, if used at to close a range. As far as I know only the police have access to them and theyve been around for quite a while.

No one here,

Im not too sure what you are talking about when you say the cop killer bullets are a media hype. Armor piercing bullets definitely exist and exist in handgun calibers. They were expensive and wore out your barrel very fast which was one reason almost no one brought them. And they really arent useful except for special circumstances but they are not a myth. You cant buy any now unless you are military or police.


One only has to look at actions taken by NYC over the last few decades to see that political promises arent worth much. They said they only wanted you to register your rifle and then some years later said get rid of them or turn them in. As Mayer once is supposed to have said: A verbal agreement isnt worth the paper its printed on. Just because the last eight years havent been bad doesnt mean the next eight cant be better. And Im not to sure that you can give the Gumbit credit for the last eight. Either elephants or asses.

While the Washington Times is owned by the Moonies it doesnt seem to have biased their news coverage anymore (and maybe less) then the NYTs being owned by who they are. Why is it that you think only conservative newspapers are biased by who owns them? As for World Net Daily. Ill give you that one. There doesnt seem to be the least bit attempt at unbiased coverage there.

As for feeling betrayed. Do you feel betrayed by the fact that what Clinton said and did over the last eight years bear no resemblance to each other. And Im not talking about Monica.

By the way you live in one of the few states where owning a machine gun is legal.

-- The Engineer (, October 20, 2000.

Yes Anita you are quite right. Machine guns (full auto firearms) ARE available to the "mainstream". All you need to get one is:

1) The $4000 - $8000 to make the buy.

2) The signoff from your local law enforcement chief that you are "okay" to own one.

3) Two sets of fingerprints taken.

4) Live in a state that ALLOWS class III firearms (many don't).

5) Send the materials outlined in #2 and #3 above, along with a $200 tax, to the BATF.

6) Wait 4 - 6 months (For a first purchase. Subsequent purchases are cleared quicker - 2 mos.)

7) Be willing to allow a warrantless search of your home by BATF agents any time, "on demand".

8) Keep the validated tax stamp with the firearm AT ALL TIMES.

9) Prior to moving, check whether or not your new state allows class III's.

10) Notify the BATF *IN WRITING* that you intend to move. Give the address, and await their "approval".

Now I ask you Anita, what could be more "mainstream" than owning a class III firearm? (Get real.)

-- no one here (-@-.-), October 20, 2000.

Cop killer bullets...were expensive and wore out your barrel very fast which was one reason almost no one brought them. And they really arent useful except for special circumstances but they are not a myth. You cant buy any now unless you are military or police.

Hint: You never COULD legally buy them as a "civilian". They are a myth as far as civilian ownership is concerned. The "law" against them was passed as a "feel good" measure. No effect on society, since most people couldn't get them anyway.

And ANY rifle bullet will penetrate a vest (without the ceramic inserts).

-- no one here (-@-.-), October 20, 2000.

I can't believe I'm still here and on this thread.

No one here:

It's a LOT easier to get the PARTS for the machine-guns and put them together yourself. In fact, many of those parts are available by mail-order. The parts don't cost anywhere NEAR the prices you quoted. My ex never had that kind of money. You don't read the right magazines, it seems, or you'd already know this stuff. You can also bypass the fingerprinting requirements, etc., because you're not buying the machine-gun. You're just buying PARTS for it.

P.S. I hadn't intended on teaching in Israel, and the metal detectors are at every school entrance at the school at which I HOPE to teach.

-- Anita (, October 20, 2000.


Lesson here is Dubya is whatever he feels the Gumbit haters want him to be. The real gem to be found is how George W. Bush goes about implementing the agenda.

As he has done most of his life,,,he sends the bill to the taxpayer and runs on a platform saying the opposite. He did it with his Ball team and AWL business. His family does it, remember Neil of Silverado Savings fame. He is the bro to tarred and feathered to run for daddy so George was volunteered.

If Bush truely believes his rhetoric, why then would he avocate using taxpayer money to pay for trigger locks? Does he not see this then makes us part of the transaction(or should)? That we can demand certain standards are met as to what type of locks are used? how they are used? penalties for incorrect usage? His actions CREATE bigger Gumbit. I thought we knew best how to spend OUR money? that we had voices about how best to spend it? Course he wishes we didn't and we would just pay up without any voice like he understands from them deals he done before.

Fact is, trigger locks are smoke. No question some innocent kids would be saved. Also little question responsible gunowners secure their weapons. Not even the issue really. And I do understand how the anti-gun nuts ride something and blow it all out of whack for their agenda.

But there is information here about the style of a man running for the office of President. Al Gore is no angel either. Frankly NOBODY running is very reflective of most I know, thus our common problem.

Bush is against laws requiring trigger locks, what is the mystery? Instead he likes using YOUR money without representation. He does NOT stand his ground, he bends like he always does, he panders. And predictably he sends the bill to the dumb taxpayer. In fact Bush doesn't even do that, he just grabs the dough. In this case peanuts frankly but an indication of how he operates. OK though, cause he going to rebate a good portion using the surplus he thinks exists. This so you can go out and use your wonderful judgement down at WalMart with an extra five in your pocket.

-- Doc Paulie (, October 20, 2000.

No one here,

Your are incorrect. You could legally buy them. I did. All they were (or are) was regular ammo with a solid copper bullet. I didnt buy them at a gun show but in a store that sold guns and ammo to and for cops. And no I didnt have any fake ID. Until the law was passed they were legal to buy and while not common and expensive it was possible to obtain them. In fact I still think (though Im not sure) that you can buy them from an individual. You can still buy armor piercing rifle ammo. Hint look for the black tip. Tracer is red, explosive is blue, phosphorous is orange, and regular is green. You can also buy specially made shotgun ammo that will go through a vest. As for the ceramic plate. Its only good for one or two hits and only for up to 308.


You are partially correct. You can buy most of the parts quite easily. What you cant buy is the receiver (what the parts go in) without what BTAFs approval. To buy the receiver, legally, you have to go through the procedure that NOH wrote above (except I thought the tax was $500 and you had to be cleared by the FBI as well as the BATF). If your ex did build a gun from parts and had a machine gun it was an illegal one.

-- The Engineer (, October 20, 2000.


"If your ex did build a gun from parts and had a machine gun it was an illegal one."

This is kindof part of the problem. There's the old "You scratch MY back and I'll scratch YOURS" philosophy that still abounds in our society. My ex knew MANY people in the gun business. He was friends with all the police in the area. Policemen and military personnel have access to things, and their families have friends that WANT these things, and right there we've thrown to the wind the arguments that "ONLY X and Y have access to these things."

-- Anita (, October 20, 2000.


I dont quite buy that argument. Yes people can and do ignore laws. They are called criminals. That goes beyond you scratch my back Ill scratch yours. I dont know about your ex so I cant judge whether or not him having a machine gun constitutes a threat to society. I definitely dont think that the cops or anyone else should have helped him (if they did) obtain parts or look the other way.

To turn it around if he had been growing pot would that have been better, worse, or the same? The right and the left both have things that they think are overblown by the other. Of course the other side doesnt see it that way.

But in all honesty I dont think I can see what electing Al over George or the other way around (or even Bill for a third time) would change anything in this case.

-- The Engineer (, October 20, 2000.

Anita, I am NOT talking about illegal, black-market purchases. I can go out on the black market and buy Stinger missiles or hand grenades, as well as full-auto firearms. However, you wouldn't want to get caught with any of those items. The prison term would be a bit "stiff", assuming you live through the BATF/FBI assault.

No, anyone can get anything, as long as they have the right connections, and enough $'s. If your ex had an illegal full-auto firearm, you were in danger of being killed by law enforcement. He might have been buds with the local cops, but I guarantee you that BATF wouldn't care if he was the mayor's brother.

And yes, the FBI, as well as the ATF, do a background check. That's what the TWO sets of cards are for. But you only send the packet to ATF. They forward everything.

-- no one here (-@-.-), October 20, 2000.


"But in all honesty I dont think I can see what electing Al over George or the other way around (or even Bill for a third time) would change anything in this case."

I'm not sure I understand it either, but I didn't start this thread. I think it began with how the Democrats were "softening" their opinions on gun-control, except most Dems [or folks like ME who are NOT Dems, but are voting for Gore over Bush this election] didn't see gun stuff as an issue in the first place.

-- Anita (, October 20, 2000.

One more thing Anita:

You will NEVER see "full-auto-fire conversion kits" for sale. Ever. The people doing the selling go immediately to prison (usually for 20+ years), if they survive the raid. You do see PLANS available for conversion, however.

So, if you have access to a machine shop, and know what you're doing, you can make your own auto-sears. How many people fill that bill? And how long would these people live when BATF found out about them (as they always seem to do)? Anita, I find your stand on this issue to be based on ignorance and hysteria. I strongly suggest you go learn a bit more about the objective reality of what you've been talking about.

And go ahead and vote for algore. My vote for Bush cancels you out. If you really voted your CONSCIENCE, you'd vote for Nader, and you know it. So much for "principles", right?

BTW, speaking for myself, I'd never even CONSIDER working in a free- kill (school) zone with metal detectors. 1) Too much violence in that school already, and 2) how would detectors have stopped Columbine? If they want to shoot you, they'll find a way. The only thing being in a free-kill zone means is that their prey will be GUARANTEED helpless.

No thanks.

-- no one here (-@-.-), October 20, 2000.

"And go ahead and vote for algore. My vote for Bush cancels you out. If you really voted your CONSCIENCE, you'd vote for Nader, and you know it. So much for "principles", right?"

I like Nader just a little more than I like Bush, but you have a right to your opinions, no one. I'm not really fond of Al, but I've checked out EVERYONE running in this election, and the only one I REALLY like is Dave Barry.

Regarding your cancelling my vote, I live in Texas. The electoral college is already running something like 59% for Bush and 30% for Gore. I don't know where YOU live, but your votes GOT to be more valuable than mine. I lose either way. If Bush wins the Presidency, I have a President that doesn't represent me. If he loses the race, he comes sulking back to Texas with a chip on his shoulder.

-- Anita (, October 20, 2000.

I came late to this discussion. What I know generally agrees with the Engineer; with the exception of:

As for ceramic bullets I cant see the cost of making them justify any wide spread use or need. They would also be extremely brittle. Not the best thing for a bullet.

There are ceramics that would be non-brittle and make good bullets. Only a moron would use them. They are so hard that they would destroy the barrel. So in a practical sense you are correct. Oh, the wonders of modern material science.

Best wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, October 20, 2000.

Bullets. Something that I forgot. It is possible to make them from a dense , oily wood. It has been done before. I actually had some that my father brought home from the South Pacific in WWII. Don't know that anyone does this. All of this would be a lot of work.

Best wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, October 20, 2000.

I'm another one who is late to his discussion, but here is my 2c worth anyway.

I must agree with Engineer that the assult type weapon is not really suitable for hunting. Two weeks ago a friend and I went deer shooting in Fiordland. I used a Lee Enfield No4 .303 ex WWII and Jym used a modern high velocity .223 semi automatic. We both shot a deer on the first day out, but whereas I managed a clean kill with my first shot, Jym scored a direct hit in the chest of his deer, but did not kill i outright. We had to track it by following the blood trail for 2 1/2 hours until I managed to get another shot at it. Give me a low muzzle elocity, heavy caliber rifle any day.

As for photo ID licences, we have had them here in NZ for a few years now. Prior to getting a licence it is necessary to pass a firearm exam, Friends and family are interviewed by the Police to see if you are a fit and able person to use a weapon, and your house is inspected to ensure that all firearms ar in a locked cupboard, and ammunition is locked away seperately from the weapons. Also, all handguns and automatic weapons are illegal. The system seems to work well, except for the criminals who don't bother to apply for a licence, as they don't have to have their homes inspected.

Although it is necessary to present a photo licence when buying ammuntion, it is not necessary to do so when purchasing bullet cases, primers, powder or projectiles. I have my own reloading kit and make many of my own bullets, no licence needed. I must also confess that I have experimented with making different types of projectile including armour piercing and explosive. Other than testing these projectiles to see if they work as expected, I have no actual use for them. But if I can make them then so can anyone else.

Z, Yes it is possible to make a wooden bullet, but it is so light compared to a lead or copper bullet that it would be ineffective at anything other than close range.

And if anyone really wants to smuggle a couple of decent meal bullets through a metal detector, it is so easy to do that its not worth worrying about. I'm not going to discuss the actual methods here on an open forum, but I assure you that it easy.

-- Malcolm Taylor (, October 21, 2000.

The simple problem is not in the power of the gun, the magazine capacity of the gun, or the laws restricting the gun; it is simply that what works in NYC or LA will not be effective or would be overly restrictive for Findlay, OH, or any other small town. I own what would be classified as an "assualt weapon". It is medium powered, it has THE ABILITY TO ACCEPT a high capacity magazine (Presently the majority of high capacity magazines are hastily produced junk), and it costs- oops, one small problem, it isn't likely to be bought by your common criminal because it costs $1250. "Hey Jerome, lets go buy some crack." "No way dog, there's this phat rifle I want to buy." Unlikely. I agree with the paragraph on the bottom. When a country grows too large, it can no longer effectively govern. That is why this is the United STATES of America, not the Peoples Republic of America. The original intent of the founding fathers was to unify under a strong central government for a time until the nation stabilized, but the US is well past that initial instability. Each state needs to adopt it's own laws to apply to its own citizens. The United States are supposed to be just that, united, but not under one roof of laws. Too often, we get laws that are too weak for some areas, but too restrictive for others. A compromise is where neither side gets what it wanted.

-- MUD (, December 19, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ