Assault Weapons Ban REVISITED In Congress!

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=143
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=114
This massive gun ban has been EXPANDED AND REINTRODUCED into congress recently by Carolyn Mcarthy(D).

Here are some informative fact sheets and articles about the infamous Clinton Gun Ban: 

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=163

It was a GOOD THING that Congress decided to let Clinton's 'Assault Weapons Ban' expire in 2004. 
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=158

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=131
http://www.clintongunban.com/
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=122

And of course: 
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

http://www.clintongunban.com/Articles.aspx?i=201
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/assault_weapons.htm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-114754-1427r.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wheeler200409130630.asp

>>7
\"No, but it means they are more likely to be wrong, usually from lies by omission.\"

They aren\'t.  If you disagree, feel free to disprove it.  Again, I put forth some studies and fact sheets.  If they are wrong, and you can prove it, go ahead.  If not, you are pretty much just saying that any collection of -facts- you recieve from a source that could be biased is unusable - which is bullshit.  This is a politics forum.  On politics forums, stuff like this gets discussed.  If you don\'t have anything to bring to the table other than \"your argument isn\'t valid (even though i have yet to proove that they are incorrect) because your fact sheets come from a source that i don\'t like,\" I am not going to take you seriously, nor should anyone else.