Can you tell me what you were googling for??
First,
http://www.mcsm.org/sksconfisc.htmlJohn Kerry's name doesn't appear on that page, so you must be offering this in relation to the business about California already having passed laws to confiscate things.
Funny. That site says (emphasis added):
Certain firearms are now under a confiscation order. This, also posted on a state-run web site. California residents must turn in their SKS rifles by 1/1/2000 -- precisely the Y2K rollover date -- or face criminal prosecution.
but doesn't give a link to that site. Weren't you at all curious? And that seems a little old --
Copyright © 1999 MCSM
Most recent revision October 1999
-- wouldn't you rather give us something showing what *has* happened, not what these folks say *was supposed to* happen?
We spoke with Nathan Barankin, Director of Communications for the California Attorney General office, who informed us that this recent SKS gun ban issue arises from an unresolved legal definition. California was one of the first states to pass a ban on so-called "assault weapons," which included the SKS rifle -- but only if the rifle had a detachable magazine. Rifles with fixed, non-removable magazines were exempt from this confiscation order, but those with removable magazine had to be recorded ("registered") and turned over to government authorities.
"This confiscation order"? I'm not getting it. Which confiscation order?
Recently-enacted legislation mandates this confiscation, calling it a "buyback" program and offering to reimburse gun owners $230 per "relinquished" rifle.
I mean, they can put all the quotation marks they want around "buyback" and "relinquished" -- it's still not showing me whether/how they were going to be CONFISCATED, is it?
Y2KNEWSWIRE then asked about the confiscation deadline: 1/1/2000. Just in time for Y2K. Barankin answered, "It is a coincidence. This was a law that was enacted in late Fall, last year, and generally laws that are passed in California become effective the next January 1, so they just wanted to give people a year to comply with the law."
According to Barankin, then, this gun confiscation order has nothing to do with Y2K and everything to do with correcting a legal snafu.
Darn. Don't you get just the slightest whiff of ... insanity?
Boy, check out the great links here! --
http://www.mcsm.org/source.html (like we need directions to the NRA)
And don't forget to click on through to "Visit the Future of Freedom Foundation"! --
http://www.fff.org/aboutUs/index.aspMission
The mission of The Future of Freedom Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government.
... Thus, for well over a century, the American people said "No" to such anti-free-market government policies as income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, immigration controls, economic regulations, drug laws, gun control, public schooling, and foreign wars.
Ah --
Democrats !!
Now ...
http://www.afn.org/~govern/ramble/getguns.htmlHmm, no "Kerry" there, either. (Tell me the search terms you used, and maybe I can help you refine them a little ... so that maybe you could substantiate that claim of yours
about Kerry, for the folks whose votes it would capture.)
Aha, we seem to be talking about the same thing here -- the provisions relating to that particular kind of firearm thing in California, several years ago:
In a letter dated November 24, 1997, The Man Who Would Be Governor declared that SKS rifles with detachable magazines, unless the owners can prove they acquired the rifles prior to June 1, 1989, are illegal "and must be relinquished to a local police or sheriff's department." This is a reversal of the opinion held by Mr. Lungren from the time he took office in January 1991, and which has been conveyed in numerous training sessions for peace officers, criminalists and prosecutors during the past four years.
Well, if it all happened as they said it happened / was going to happen, and if one can characterize
making it illegal to possess a particular narrow category and small proportion of "X" as "'X' confiscation" -- i.e. characterize the banning of whatever tiny proportion of firearms in California fell within the category affected by this legislation as "gun confiscation", as in your "<gun> confiscation laws", assuming that we can read the "gun" as if it were there -- well, then, maybe you're right.
Now, how 'bout this
"I agree with Senator Feinstein when she said, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in'."of yours? You agree with her when she said, referring to ASSAULT WEAPONS,
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them ... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
(If you ask google, you'll find all the sources for that one you need.)
You see, even the NRA fills in the blanks thus:
http://www.clintongunban.com/Articles.aspx?i=59&a=Articles"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban <on "assault weapons">, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."
So would you maybe agree that someone who writes the quotation in question thus:
On CBS's "60 Minutes" on February 5, 1995, Senator Dianne Feinstein declared, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright <firearms> ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."
is, oh, a lying sack of shit?
And yet that's exactly what your source,
http://www.afn.org/~govern, did.
When you said that you "agreed" with Diane Feinstein, I do hope you weren't accidentally claiming that Diane Feinstein would have banned all firearms in the US if she could have. You weren't claiming that, were you??
"This is a reality."Can you identify the referent for that "this" of yours?
What is a reality, please?
I can think of a number of things that are, but I'm not sure which of them you might have been referring to.