Edward Lai Harner, Edward Harner
Andrea Harner
rssicon15.jpg
andreaharnerblog AT gmail
This site is a member of the Blogads NYC Blog network!
Favorites
Dates

July 12, 2004

Other than to gruesomely destroy lives, what are assault weapons good for?

Hello faithful readers!

There is a new interface that helps bloggers take political action. The first test for the software is an effort to extend the assault weapons ban.

Please sign up here on the andreaharner.com page so I can kick the asses of all the other bloggers who are participating. J/K, J/K! However please note that I am currently in 3rd place and would love to take you all with me on the glorious ride to the top!

If you're a blogger who'd like to compete, you can sign up here...NOT that this is a competition...LOL, LOL.

If you want more information about this important cause and project, you can find that here.



Comments

I disagree with the "assault weapons ban"
I think it's creative marketing.
assault wepon = rifle with pistol style grip

What needs to be considered is any sort of rifle that takes a magazine or possibly the need to take a look at capcity (ie: no more than say 8 rounds)

You can do as much damage with a m-14 (which would still be legal if a ban on assult wepons was passed)that you can do with an ak-97 (which would become illegal) provided you has the same capacity cartrages... now if you baned rifles which took magazines, they would both become illegal

Posted by: me of me inc. at July 12, 2004 11:33 PM

p.s. ... but i did like the petition page, now only if they could get a cause which i am sympathetic towards (asking nader not to run)

Posted by: me of me inc. at July 12, 2004 11:36 PM

How about this instead: Let's actually prosecute those who break gun laws. Let's try to enforce laws that are already on the books before adding new laws that will not work.

Last time I checked there were more people killed in this country each year by drunk drivers than by legally obtained guns. So what is adding another law prohibiting Joe Citizen from having a gun going to do?

Nothing.

Posted by: Jason at July 13, 2004 12:49 PM

Andrea, is it really in the spirit of this action that we compete to get signups?

Of course it is! Don't let andreaharner.com beat shey.net! Right now we are tied... c'mon, support the underdog. Sign the petition here:

http://tinyurl.com/3n8yt

Posted by: Tim at July 13, 2004 2:05 PM

You know ..peter (jennings)covered this (tells me my tivo just now) how there is so much in the pipelines and the senate floor is going on and on about "family rights"...instead of homeland security.(homeland security sounds so...evilish) and that the ban will simply expire if not picked up before the DNC/RNC.

Bill (moyers) covered the lack of prosacutions in reguards to illegal weapon sales a few months ago.

Posted by: me of me inc. at July 13, 2004 11:37 PM

HELLO EVERYONE IM AGINST THE GUN BAN BECAUSE LOOK AT OUR COUNTRY HAS OUR ARMY ALL OVER THE WORLD BUT HERE DONT YOU FIND THAT STRANGE. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE GUNS THAT WE COULD PROTECT OURS HOMES AND FAMILYS IF AMERICAN SOIL IS EVER ATTACKED IN THAT WAY. ALL THOSE PEOPLE IN THEM COUNTRIES HAVE AUTOMATIC GUNS WHY TO PROTECT THERE COUNTRY SO WE SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT TO .
I KNOW IF WE GET HIT AT HOME WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEFEND OUR FAMILY AND DONT SAY IT WILL NEVER COME DOWN TO THAT LOOK AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ALL THOSE PEOPLE FOR WHAT WELL IT WAS NOT A GUN THATS FOR SURE IT WAS A SMALL BUT VERY EFFECTIVE BOX CUTTER HUH MAYBE WE SHOULD BAN THEM TO .

Posted by: WE NEED OUR GUNS at August 13, 2004 8:22 PM
Video projects



This Website was designed by Cat Savard