Keith Devens .com

Non-Spoiling Matrix Comment -
I don't know if you left for your trip yet Keith, but if you stay until the very end of the Matrix Reloaded, when the credits wrap up, the Matrix Revolutions trailer will be played. So if you want to see the official cinema trailer for the final part of the series, stick it out until the credits are done.

Wait, so you saw it?? What'd you think of the movie?

Or did you just hear that from someone else?

I don't follow the logic.

How is being against the ability to purchase a TEC-9 or AK-47 at odds with having an armed bodyguard (who probably has something like a 9mm)?

So far as I know, Schumers position is gun control, not banning. Also, our President agrees with him regarding the extension of the assault weapon ban (and on banning high capacity ammo clips).

reference url

Hey Steve, I wasn't even referring to the assault weapons ban. It's something as simple as concealed carry laws even. It's really hard to get a gun license at all, let alone a concealed carry license, in NY. For an ordinary citizen. But Schumer gets to have an armed body-guard to protect him, so while he's willing to take guns away from "ordinary" people, he still wants someone with a gun to protect him. That's why it's hypocritical. He's willing to take guns away from people, but not to do without one himself.

As an example, there was a movement among Democrats to label any handgun a weapon of mass destruction. Unfortunately, Seattle Times broke their link, bastards. Though I shouldn't have linked to the print version... I didn't think about it. I'm pretty sure Feinstein was part of that, and I assume Schumer was too, though I'd have to do research to make sure.

Though, it goes beyond Schumer. A lot of the Democrats who want to take away people's right to own guns have bodyguards to protect themselves. They should heed their own arguments, that we all have the police to protect us, so we don't need guns ourselves.

Can't anyone hire a bodyguard with a gun? Or is that just Schumer?

Also, I can't find any data on where Schumer wants to take away guns. Make them more difficult to own, yes, but not take them away. In fact, I found several references speaking on Shumers support of the right of sportsmen to own firearms, and that anyone who wants to own a gun for self-protection should be allowed to do so." "Schumer letter to NRA" = "http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01275.html"

Personally, having people in Manhatten allowed to carry concealed (or other kind) guns seems like a bad idea. Bernie Goetz (sp?) springs to mind.

I'm not a lawyer, but having guns defined as WMD sounds (from your post) to be an attempt to change a legal definition. I believe that similar tactics have been attempted as work arounds for abortion and prayer in schools.

Interesting sidebar - it's now illegal to own guns in Iraq. I guess the Iraqi's will need to rely on the soldiers to protect them.

Quoted-
"Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, commander of U.S. ground forces, said Thursday coalition forces would begin arresting people possessing or selling firearms."

"link" = "http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-iraq-raid,0,3717426.story?coll=sns-newsnation-headlines"
I'm referring to the last bullet point on the page.

Sorry - Didn't mean to blow out your page.

Wait, it's legal to buy assault weapons in the U.S.A? I can see how hunting rifles and shotguns are good, and I can see the argument for handguns for protection (although I disagree, although the situation is a lot different in the states and I don't really know enough facts to really comment about it). But anyway, how on earth do you allow assault weapons? Surely they should be illegal?