Democrat Governor Signs Pro-Gun Bill

[RoeBear]

http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw97769_20040513.htm

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Antique gun collectors won't need a license or safety inspection for their old weaponry under legislation signed Thursday by Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

The three-bill package is intended to clear up confusion for retailers about how to apply to antique firearm purchases the requirement for a license and safety inspection.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

She also has done things to make hunters happy by voicing support for dove hunting. I also expect her to make a positive comment about CCW soon.

[Township75]

1. hmmmmmm...awefully quiet around here.

.

[RoeBear]

2. Some people get real quiet...

...when things don't go their way.

[MrBenchley]

3. And some people get really desperate

in trying to find a "pro-gun" bill....

[RoeBear]

5. splain

please

[CO Liberal]

7. I Don't Post Much On Weekends

Too many other things on the agenda.

But I still see no need for CCW ... anywhere.

[FatSlob]

8. Have you checked the dozens of states where it is OK?

Any problems there? Nope? Besides, I need one, I licenses from three states.

[CO Liberal]

9. I Still Think CCW is a Dumb Idea.

Period.

[FatSlob]

10. Of course you do.

You hold an authoritarian position where firearms are concerned. I stand for freedom.

[MrBenchley]

11. So fat slob...Are you free to tell us yet

how "blacks, Jews and women" are "professional victims?"

[FatSlob]

12. I never stated that they are.

I state, however, that your assertion that a Jewish group uses "David Duke's playbook" is absurd on its face. Your silly little attack on me is not even a true attack. You are attempting to attribute to me a statement made by another. The fact that it was posted by me does not imply endorsement. Your method of arguement leaves much to be desired, as the tactic you have used is one usually associated with the feeble minded. I did not expect that a DU member would use such tactic, as the average DUer is more intelligent than that. I find it unfortunate that you've had to resort to such low-browed and comtemptable discourse. I hope to see you return to your normal, well reasoned and tasteful self. Perhaps a nap would aid in your return to propriety?

[MrBenchley]

13. You posted an article that said they were

and announced the article had "issues worth discussing."

"You are attempting to attribute to me a statement made by another."
Yup...a bigoted piece of filth that would be right in line with David Duke's idiocy that YOU dredged up and put on the forum.

"the average DUer is more intelligent than that."
Gee, this average DUer was certainly intelligent enough to see "the righter" for the bigoted piece of shit she is...but then, this is the fourth or fifth time one of you "enthusiasts" has tried to pass that dogturd off as a Baby Ruth.

"I find it unfortunate that you've had to resort to such low-browed and comtemptable discourse."
And I find it unfortunate that anybody would try to post such filth. And who but the lowbrowed and contemptible would take it seriously, or try to pass it along as if it had any worth whatsoever.

[FatSlob]

15. My response to a surprisingly reasoned post.

Of course, it has issues worth discussing. However, it seems that you are unwilling to discuss them. It certainly makes sense that one who visciously opposed to arms of any sort has some sort of problem. You next write more about "David Duke's idiocy". Of course he's an idiot, however it is still laughable that Jews would support him. It is absurd on its face, and you really demean yourself to write such drivel as Jews using "David Duke's playbook" . I never said anything about the "dogturd" being a "Baby Ruth". Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Sylvan has an excellent course, it worked very well for the child I mentor in the "big brother" program. In fact, I think that the writing does have some worth. Yes, it is very obviously biased, however certain hypothesis do appear to merit some looking into. I am not qualified to do so, as I have only minimal training in the field. I do not know if they are valid, that is for doctors to look into, but there does appear to be some sense in places. Are there people who are "professional victims" as the author states? Yes there are, however her sweeping generalizations are overbroad and poor. I wonder if the outrage expressed by some folks over the article is because these people see themselves in it? Ahhh, that is a discussion for another day.

[MrBenchley]

17. So tell us fat slob...how ARE "blacks, jews and women"

"professional victims"?

"Of course he's an idiot, however it is still laughable that Jews would support him."
And yet you found one who parroted that sort of bigoted filth (her ambition, according to her own imbecilic webpage, is to be on the SPLC Hate List, next to various neoNazi and white supremacist groups, which tells most people all they need to know) and rushed to paste it on this forum and pretend it had "merit" that needed to be discussed. Just as the bullets for brains crowd has four or five times before.

"I wonder if the outrage expressed by some folks over the article is because these people see themselves in it?"
Do YOU, fat slob? Gee, seems MUCH more likely the people who see themselves in it and hold its agenda dear are the same ones that keep pasting this repelllent bit of horseshit up, trying to admire its "merits." You know, the ones who say stuff like "In fact, I think that the writing does have some worth."

[FatSlob]

18. I've already answered your first question.

"Are there people who are "professional victims" as the author states? Yes there are, however her sweeping generalizations are overbroad and poor." Is what I wrote. Did you miss that part? Sylvan helped my "little brother" when he had reading problems. They have changed their name to Educate Inc.

Ahh, young Benchley, you seem to be unable to separate things. Just because one may have repugnant opinions, such as wanting to be on the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate list, does not mean that the individual's writings or thoughts are wholly without merit. I previously indicated that I am not qualified to judge the merit of the writings, as I have little training in the area.

Yes, I continue to wonder, as the outrage expressed by some indicates that it hits close to home. Of course, I am not qualified to make a judgement on the matter, as I have little training in psychology. However, in my musings, it is certainly a possibility.

You see, young sir, I have no knowlege of the truthfulness of the article written by "the righter" in regards to the psychology of the gun-banning crowd. To a layperson, like myself, it appears that there may be some nuggets worth mining, but a trained individual would have to examine them. You unfortunately seem to think that the mere act of posting or referencing an article means that one endorses it. You are mistaken. I take no position on her opinions of the psychology of gun-banners/grabbers/fearers/etc. I take no position because I am only minimally trained in the art. Many of the other positions held by "the righter" are repugnant, I've held that since the beginning. They are repugnant on their face, and I did not feel them to be worth assigning import to. I hope you are now clear, if you are not, then you are beyond hope.

[MrBenchley]

19. No, you've dodged it again and again....

"you seem to be unable to separate things. Just because one may have repugnant opinions, such as wanting to be on the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate list, does not mean that the individual's writings or thoughts are wholly without merit."
Gee, fat slob...the onus is upon you then to demonstrate that despite being a bigot and crazy as a shithouse rat, she has some argument worth hearing...which you seem unwilling to attempt.

And yeah, I really doubt that she has some kernel of truth rattling around her empty skull that has eluded decent people like John Kerry or Chuck Schumer or John Lewis or Ted Kennedy or John Edwards or Diane Feinstein or Carolyn McCarthy or Molly Ivins.

"Yes, I continue to wonder, as the outrage expressed by some indicates that it hits close to home."
Go figure...some of us who fight for civil rights don't much care for this kind of bigoted shit...which "our pro-gun democrats" seem to eat up with a spoon.

"You unfortunately seem to think that the mere act of posting or referencing an article means that one endorses it."
Gee, I think that when someone posts crap like "In fact, I think that the writing does have some worth." that someone IS endorsing it. And you're welcome to it, because it shows so well what is really peeping out from under the "gun rights" sheet...and why folks like Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Pat Buchanan, Larry Pratt, Ted Nugent, and David Duke are all peddling it.

"I hope you are now clear"
I was never confused, now or the other four or five times some "enthusiast" dredged this out of the cesspool...and the fact that you keep dancing away from the simple question that forms the nubbin of her repellent article shows I wasn't.

[FatSlob]

20. I find it hilarious for you to say that you fight for civil rights

when you are so opposed to the civil right of bearing arms. We've already gone over the rest. I'm starting to think a certain post in a locked thread is true.

[CO Liberal]

14. Not Authoritarian...Just Common Sense

[will89]

4. Good for them

Its good to hear about pro gun laws.
Will

[ScubaJeep]

6. Thats too bad

I rather enjoyed presenting my flint-lock pistol for safety inspection.

[mosin]

16. Call me picky...

but I don't consider it much of a victory that a tiny exception is made for antique weaponry. As long as everything else requires a purchase license and a safety inspection, Michiganders have more work to do.

I certainly wouldn't trust a police bureaucrat to determine whether my guns are safe. I know how every little piece of every gun I own goes together.