Newest in The Gun Zone: Kerry's Voting Record on Guns

Not that it matters to the point of the discussion, but I believe the shotgun is actually a Rem 11-87 and not an 1100. Either way, it isn't a "rifle" as the gun-grabbing moron claimed.

What is interesting is that not only would it be banned under the proposed law mentioned, if you put an extended mag tube and a pistol grip (or folding) stock on either an 1100 or an 11-87, it magically becomes an evil "semiautomatic assault weapon" banned by the soon to expire AWB. Funny how the Schumer-Feinstein-McCarthy-Brady cabal don't mention that.

Thanks... Terrific write up on Kerry’s and gun control. I’ll be referring to that page a lot between now and the election. Hopefully, after the election, there will be no reason to review that page. Thanks again for providing some great reading and references at the Gun Zone.

I wondered about that Model 1100 v. 11-87 thing, but Remington still makes the Model 1100 in the very "sporting" configurations that would fit within the very strict (i.e., "selective") classification which the Kerry people find an "acceptable firearm."

Agreed, Dean. My only reason for mentioning the 11-87 as more probable is the source of that info. I believe the UMW folks who gave him the shotgun said it was an 11-87. Since they were the givers, and Rem employees, they should know best.

Couldn't agree more...

Kerry has nothing to offer except a repeat of the Klinton years- or worse.

http://thesixgunjournal.com/Election04.htm

Gun-law expert Alan Korwin calls for calm in the "national uproar" over John Kerry's possible serious gun violations during a recent photo op in West Virginia.

Alan Korwin said:

Calls to indict Kerry are premature and most certainly overkill. He should receive the same lenient treatment any other citizen deserves when innocently violating these complex and non-intuitive rules.

Click to expand...

Assuming for the moment that the above passage is not a veiled call for the government to burn down one of Kerry's homes with him in it, I still must disagree. Other citizens are not responsible for passing into law the statutes that allow these rules. Liberals are always more than willing to pass a law, since they assume, usually correctly, that the law won't apply to them. That's why I am so fond of gravity... even the Kennedys have to obey it.

Very excellent piece, thanks for posting it.

Kerry prolly broke no laws. The gun was most likely never actually transferred, and the thing not being one of his beloved double-barrelled deer guns, Kerry prolly just tossed it in the trash on his way out of the event, so it never left the state. John Fonda Kerry would never be seen in public shooting a common Remington, ferpissake, it just wouldn't do.

(The thought of Kerry crawling around on his belly like a lizard with a double-barrel shotgun trying to "outsmart" a deer is just too comical to resist. Where would he get an Elmer Fudd/Floyd R. Turbo hat big enough to cover all that hair? And is it true that he'll only shoot the deer if it's running away?)

A couple of items:

1. Washington Post said:

   Kerry was presented with a union-made Remington shotgun, which he inspected and proudly held aloft, one of several photo ops his campaign has staged to highlight his support of guns for sportsmen.

   Click to expand...

   Korwin definitely had that wrong in his original text, calling it a "Browning."[/*:z53isccl]
   
2. WTF is "prolly?!?"[/*:z53isccl]

WTF is "prolly?!?"

Click to expand...

That's ghetto/rap for probably.

Joe Forte said:

WTF is "prolly?!?"

Click to expand...

That's ghetto/rap for probably.

Click to expand...

Right. Someone got it. It's also internet shorthand for same thing.

When I was in Journalism school, they told me, "After you master the rules, you're allowed to break the rules." I mastered the rules and got my degree, which I consider to be a license to speak and write as the mood strikes me.

But there are purists still around, so I promise never to use the incorrect construction "comprised of." Fair enough?

That's the problem with journalism school, they think getting a degree denotes mastery. I always thought that the degree meant you had enough exposure to the fundamentals to begin the serious study of a subject.

Ulnfortunately, Tim, there's no smiley icon here with its tongue about four inches into its cheek that I could put on that post.

As for journalism as a profession, observe the behavior of one Mr. Daniel Rather over the last three days. They don't call it a "BS" degree for nothing.

I've never been so ashamed of my chosen field. I think I'll start telling people that I majored in "Women's Studies" (which save for an apostrophe and an S is actually pretty much the truth....).

Snake45 said:

As for journalism as a profession, observe the behavior of one Mr. Daniel Rather over the last three days. They don't call it a "BS" degree for nothing.

I've never been so ashamed of my chosen field. I think I'll start telling people that I majored in "Women's Studies" (which save for an apostrophe and an S is actually pretty much the truth....).

Click to expand...

Oh, I think ole Dan is showing a high degree of mastery of his subject. Now if you (or any one else, for that matter) wants to claim mastery in the field of women studies, give me some advance notice, so I can find my hip waders.

I said I studied them. I never claimed to have mastered them.