<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rosie Takes On The NRA</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/</link>
	<description>in all matter of opinion, our adversaries are insane.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Aug 2010 14:43:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: FrmrArtyOffcr</title>
		<link>http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/comment-page-1/#comment-254151</link>
		<dc:creator>FrmrArtyOffcr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Oct 2006 03:00:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/#comment-254151</guid>
		<description>That list is pretty complete for weapons that fire metallic cartridges. I can&#039;t say much, I have a short magazine Lee Enfield and FAL in the safe, used to own a semiautomatic AK, and a bolt action Mauser, carried an 03A3 for a color guard and used an M16A1 while on active duty. Does that mean I&#039;ve been exposed to 60% of the top battle rifles of the 20th Century? M14s, and Augs are too expensive, Garands are too heavy and Sturmgewehrs are too rare. Other than the Sturmgewehrs, I&#039;ve handled and or fired all of the ones on the list. Of course having a couple of friends who were class 3 machine gun dealers (two were licensed class 2 manufacturers) probably means I&#039;ve handled more weapons than most people will ever see outside of a museum.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That list is pretty complete for weapons that fire metallic cartridges. I can&#8217;t say much, I have a short magazine Lee Enfield and FAL in the safe, used to own a semiautomatic AK, and a bolt action Mauser, carried an 03A3 for a color guard and used an M16A1 while on active duty. Does that mean I&#8217;ve been exposed to 60% of the top battle rifles of the 20th Century? M14s, and Augs are too expensive, Garands are too heavy and Sturmgewehrs are too rare. Other than the Sturmgewehrs, I&#8217;ve handled and or fired all of the ones on the list. Of course having a couple of friends who were class 3 machine gun dealers (two were licensed class 2 manufacturers) probably means I&#8217;ve handled more weapons than most people will ever see outside of a museum.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sasha</title>
		<link>http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/comment-page-1/#comment-254132</link>
		<dc:creator>Sasha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:22:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/#comment-254132</guid>
		<description>I was watching the Military Channel the other night, and panel of experts ranked the to ten combat rifles. &lt;a href=&quot;http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/rifles/slideshow/slideshow.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;link&lt;/a&gt;

The list may be a bit subjective, but what top ten list isn&#039;t?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was watching the Military Channel the other night, and panel of experts ranked the to ten combat rifles. <a href="http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/rifles/slideshow/slideshow.html" rel="nofollow">link</a></p>
<p>The list may be a bit subjective, but what top ten list isn&#8217;t?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FrmrArtyOffcr</title>
		<link>http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/comment-page-1/#comment-253994</link>
		<dc:creator>FrmrArtyOffcr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2006 05:42:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/#comment-253994</guid>
		<description>BTW Peejz thanks for bringing up the NRA membership, I need to renew mine this month. I guess I&#039;ll take care of that at the gun show this weekend.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BTW Peejz thanks for bringing up the NRA membership, I need to renew mine this month. I guess I&#8217;ll take care of that at the gun show this weekend.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FrmrArtyOffcr</title>
		<link>http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/comment-page-1/#comment-253992</link>
		<dc:creator>FrmrArtyOffcr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2006 05:37:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/#comment-253992</guid>
		<description>Ted, again I have to disagree with you. While the AK-47 is in fact a very reliable weapon, it is NOT easy to convert a semiautomatic one to fully automatic. The internal components aren&#039;t the same. If you have the skill to remachine the receiver you might be able to convert it. AN SKS is NOT a 10 round version of an AK-47 though they are similar, the actions are NOT interchangeable. The receivers aren&#039;t even close. While conversion kits may be available, and fully automatic parts are available, they are not drop in units nor are they LEGAL to install.

The 7.62 x 39 cartridge is considered an intermediate cartridge. It is larger in diameter than an M-16s 5.56 x 45 cartridge but the muzzle velocity is substantially less. According to my Speer reloading manual, the 5.56 round averages around 2900 ft per second, the 7.62 x 39 round on the other hand barely averages 2400 ft per second. By comparison the 30.06 round used in the M1 Garand during WWII was approaching 2900 ft per second with a heavier bullet. The 7.62 x 51 Nato round used in the M14, FAL, or G3 also drives a heavier bullet faster than the 7.62 x 39 round. All told the AK47 round is effective to about 200 meters, beyond that its low velocity causes the round to drop rapidly. I would happily give someone an AK with 30 rounds versus my 10 shot WWI British Short Magazine Lee Enfield as long as I get to pick the range. We&#039;ll start at 600 meters. By the time they get within range of the AK, I&#039;ll have put 3 or more rounds through them. Lots of rounds doesn&#039;t necessarily mean effective. There are people who would take an 8 shot Garand and put rounds through them at 800 - 1000 yards. I don&#039;t get out to the range enough for that.

As for joining the NRA, there are a lot of benefits to it including insurance should your firearms be stolen. You can find out more at www.nra.org. As for people using their firearms for self defense, there is a column in each monthly NRA magazine (one subscription free with membership). Membership is inexpensive. ($35 per year) For those who haven&#039;t had a lot of exposure to firearms, the NRA offers a variety of training programs including ones geared towards women and they also sponsor a gun safety program for children.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ted, again I have to disagree with you. While the AK-47 is in fact a very reliable weapon, it is NOT easy to convert a semiautomatic one to fully automatic. The internal components aren&#8217;t the same. If you have the skill to remachine the receiver you might be able to convert it. AN SKS is NOT a 10 round version of an AK-47 though they are similar, the actions are NOT interchangeable. The receivers aren&#8217;t even close. While conversion kits may be available, and fully automatic parts are available, they are not drop in units nor are they LEGAL to install.</p>
<p>The 7.62 x 39 cartridge is considered an intermediate cartridge. It is larger in diameter than an M-16s 5.56 x 45 cartridge but the muzzle velocity is substantially less. According to my Speer reloading manual, the 5.56 round averages around 2900 ft per second, the 7.62 x 39 round on the other hand barely averages 2400 ft per second. By comparison the 30.06 round used in the M1 Garand during WWII was approaching 2900 ft per second with a heavier bullet. The 7.62 x 51 Nato round used in the M14, FAL, or G3 also drives a heavier bullet faster than the 7.62 x 39 round. All told the AK47 round is effective to about 200 meters, beyond that its low velocity causes the round to drop rapidly. I would happily give someone an AK with 30 rounds versus my 10 shot WWI British Short Magazine Lee Enfield as long as I get to pick the range. We&#8217;ll start at 600 meters. By the time they get within range of the AK, I&#8217;ll have put 3 or more rounds through them. Lots of rounds doesn&#8217;t necessarily mean effective. There are people who would take an 8 shot Garand and put rounds through them at 800 &#8211; 1000 yards. I don&#8217;t get out to the range enough for that.</p>
<p>As for joining the NRA, there are a lot of benefits to it including insurance should your firearms be stolen. You can find out more at <a href="http://www.nra.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.nra.org</a>. As for people using their firearms for self defense, there is a column in each monthly NRA magazine (one subscription free with membership). Membership is inexpensive. ($35 per year) For those who haven&#8217;t had a lot of exposure to firearms, the NRA offers a variety of training programs including ones geared towards women and they also sponsor a gun safety program for children.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TedintheShed</title>
		<link>http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/comment-page-1/#comment-253718</link>
		<dc:creator>TedintheShed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/#comment-253718</guid>
		<description>Sorry FAO, I have to contest some of your statements. FTR, I am a life long gun owner and a fervent pro second amendment as it was originally framed, not how it has been reframed dince the 50&#039;s.

&lt;em&gt;AK47s are in fact not particularly powerful weapons. They can just hold a lot of rounds. The round itself isn&#039;t even a very powerful round. &lt;/em&gt;

It depends on the context. It is an extremely effective anti-personel weapon. The 7.62mm x39 rounds are not huge (comparable to our M-16 military rounds they are actually bigger, which are basically a .223 or 5.56x45 mm), but the muzzle velocity is very high. The rifle is extremely reliable, easy to field dress and the balance between fire rate and round is very effective

&lt;em&gt;There&#039;s also the fallacy that the LEGAL SEMIAUTOMATIC ones are readily convertible to fully automatic. THIS IS A LIE perpetrated by the ANTI GUN crowd. &lt;/em&gt;

No, it&#039;s not a lie. An SKS can be bought at any gun show for $200.00. (The SKS is basically the semi-auto 10 round version of an AK with some other minor difference. It is based on the same design). A conversion kit is about $50.00 and I can usually buy them legally just down the isle at amost swap meets.


&lt;em&gt;In the year prior to the ban on &quot;Assualt Weapons&quot;passed by the Chicago city council, there were exactly ZERO crimes committed with the firearms that were subsequently banned as a means to &quot;reduce crimeâ€.&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry FAO, I have to contest some of your statements. FTR, I am a life long gun owner and a fervent pro second amendment as it was originally framed, not how it has been reframed dince the 50&#8242;s.</p>
<p><em>AK47s are in fact not particularly powerful weapons. They can just hold a lot of rounds. The round itself isn&#8217;t even a very powerful round. </em></p>
<p>It depends on the context. It is an extremely effective anti-personel weapon. The 7.62mm x39 rounds are not huge (comparable to our M-16 military rounds they are actually bigger, which are basically a .223 or 5.56&#215;45 mm), but the muzzle velocity is very high. The rifle is extremely reliable, easy to field dress and the balance between fire rate and round is very effective</p>
<p><em>There&#8217;s also the fallacy that the LEGAL SEMIAUTOMATIC ones are readily convertible to fully automatic. THIS IS A LIE perpetrated by the ANTI GUN crowd. </em></p>
<p>No, it&#8217;s not a lie. An SKS can be bought at any gun show for $200.00. (The SKS is basically the semi-auto 10 round version of an AK with some other minor difference. It is based on the same design). A conversion kit is about $50.00 and I can usually buy them legally just down the isle at amost swap meets.</p>
<p><em>In the year prior to the ban on &#8220;Assualt Weapons&#8221;passed by the Chicago city council, there were exactly ZERO crimes committed with the firearms that were subsequently banned as a means to &#8220;reduce crimeâ€.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JK</title>
		<link>http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/comment-page-1/#comment-253708</link>
		<dc:creator>JK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:48:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/#comment-253708</guid>
		<description>THE REAL QUESTION: Who seriously listens to Rosie?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>THE REAL QUESTION: Who seriously listens to Rosie?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peejz</title>
		<link>http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/comment-page-1/#comment-253627</link>
		<dc:creator>Peejz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:11:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/#comment-253627</guid>
		<description>8- Sandy- I never knew that about your Mom!  I would dare say she is here because of the gun!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>8- Sandy- I never knew that about your Mom!  I would dare say she is here because of the gun!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peejz</title>
		<link>http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/comment-page-1/#comment-253626</link>
		<dc:creator>Peejz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:10:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/#comment-253626</guid>
		<description>FAO- That was no rant! That is fact based and filled wih information that challenged me to investigate.  

How does membership in the NRA work?  How does one become a member?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FAO- That was no rant! That is fact based and filled wih information that challenged me to investigate.  </p>
<p>How does membership in the NRA work?  How does one become a member?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FrmrArtyOffcr</title>
		<link>http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/comment-page-1/#comment-253586</link>
		<dc:creator>FrmrArtyOffcr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2006 06:41:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/#comment-253586</guid>
		<description>Okay, let me dispell a LOT of myths about firearms.

There has not to my knowledge been anyone killed by armor piercing bullets. Except for the extra heavy body armor worn by Swat teams, police body armor will not stop most rifle rounds. It may stop some of the lighter rifle rounds but that&#039;s really iffy. Body armor is NOT, in reality, bullet proof. Most Police body armor will stop the far less powerful handgun rounds, but rifle rounds are another story.

AK47s are in fact not particularly powerful weapons. They can just hold a lot of rounds. The round itself isn&#039;t even a very powerful round. There&#039;s also the fallacy that the LEGAL SEMIAUTOMATIC ones are readily convertible to fully automatic. THIS IS A LIE perpetrated by the ANTI GUN crowd. In the year prior to the ban on &quot;Assualt Weapons&quot; passed by the Chicago city council, there were exactly ZERO crimes committed with the firearms that were subsequently banned as a means to &quot;reduce crime&quot;.

BATFE regulations have not permitted the importation or manufacture of fully automatic or weapons that can be readily converted to fully automatic for public sale since May of 1986. All receivers for fully automatic or selective fire weapons for transfer to private individuals had to be registered prior to that time. There is a NON refundable $200 transfer application tax that has to be paid before any NFA (National Firearms Act) weapons may be transferred to any individual. The application has to include fingerprints which will be checked against criminal records before the weapon may be transferred and the application may be denied if the fingerprints are smudged. Because of the scarcity of legally transferrable fully automatic weapons (they haven&#039;t been made in 20 years) the prices have skyrocketed. Purchasers of selective fire/fully automatic weapons have been subject to background checks and registration since 1934 and in those 72 years, there are no records of a &lt;em&gt;legally&lt;/em&gt; owned automatic weapon being used in the commission of a crime. 

For your own information, I would highly recommend that you go to any gun dealer and ask to see a BATF form 4473. It is the form that must be filled out for any firearm that that dealer sells to a retail customer. On it is a long list of questions. The wrong answer to any of those questions disqualifies the individual from buying a firearm. With minor exceptions, these disqualifications have been in effect since the Gun Control Act of 1968 was signed into law. In addition to the form 4473, except in the case of individuals with concealed carry permits, all firearms purchasers have to submit to a background check with the FBI. While the check can take under 5 minutes, it can cause the purchase to be denied, delayed or granted. 

Sorry about the rant, but I have read so much idiotic drivel on the topics of firearms and crime, I had to at least provide a little information on the topic. I personally think that the NRA needs to show ABC exactly how powerful an organization with over 3 million paid members can be. If you think ABC caved when Bill Clinton called, imagine what they&#039;ll do when Sandy Froman calls the CEOs of the sponsors of &quot;the View&quot;. You don&#039;t call the network, you contact the sponsors. There are few sponsors who will tell a well organized group with 3 million members to go pound sand.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, let me dispell a LOT of myths about firearms.</p>
<p>There has not to my knowledge been anyone killed by armor piercing bullets. Except for the extra heavy body armor worn by Swat teams, police body armor will not stop most rifle rounds. It may stop some of the lighter rifle rounds but that&#8217;s really iffy. Body armor is NOT, in reality, bullet proof. Most Police body armor will stop the far less powerful handgun rounds, but rifle rounds are another story.</p>
<p>AK47s are in fact not particularly powerful weapons. They can just hold a lot of rounds. The round itself isn&#8217;t even a very powerful round. There&#8217;s also the fallacy that the LEGAL SEMIAUTOMATIC ones are readily convertible to fully automatic. THIS IS A LIE perpetrated by the ANTI GUN crowd. In the year prior to the ban on &#8220;Assualt Weapons&#8221; passed by the Chicago city council, there were exactly ZERO crimes committed with the firearms that were subsequently banned as a means to &#8220;reduce crime&#8221;.</p>
<p>BATFE regulations have not permitted the importation or manufacture of fully automatic or weapons that can be readily converted to fully automatic for public sale since May of 1986. All receivers for fully automatic or selective fire weapons for transfer to private individuals had to be registered prior to that time. There is a NON refundable $200 transfer application tax that has to be paid before any NFA (National Firearms Act) weapons may be transferred to any individual. The application has to include fingerprints which will be checked against criminal records before the weapon may be transferred and the application may be denied if the fingerprints are smudged. Because of the scarcity of legally transferrable fully automatic weapons (they haven&#8217;t been made in 20 years) the prices have skyrocketed. Purchasers of selective fire/fully automatic weapons have been subject to background checks and registration since 1934 and in those 72 years, there are no records of a <em>legally</em> owned automatic weapon being used in the commission of a crime. </p>
<p>For your own information, I would highly recommend that you go to any gun dealer and ask to see a BATF form 4473. It is the form that must be filled out for any firearm that that dealer sells to a retail customer. On it is a long list of questions. The wrong answer to any of those questions disqualifies the individual from buying a firearm. With minor exceptions, these disqualifications have been in effect since the Gun Control Act of 1968 was signed into law. In addition to the form 4473, except in the case of individuals with concealed carry permits, all firearms purchasers have to submit to a background check with the FBI. While the check can take under 5 minutes, it can cause the purchase to be denied, delayed or granted. </p>
<p>Sorry about the rant, but I have read so much idiotic drivel on the topics of firearms and crime, I had to at least provide a little information on the topic. I personally think that the NRA needs to show ABC exactly how powerful an organization with over 3 million paid members can be. If you think ABC caved when Bill Clinton called, imagine what they&#8217;ll do when Sandy Froman calls the CEOs of the sponsors of &#8220;the View&#8221;. You don&#8217;t call the network, you contact the sponsors. There are few sponsors who will tell a well organized group with 3 million members to go pound sand.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sandy</title>
		<link>http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/comment-page-1/#comment-253574</link>
		<dc:creator>Sandy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2006 05:24:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightvoices.com/2006/10/03/rosie-takes-on-the-nra/#comment-253574</guid>
		<description>She never mentions how many &quot;citizens&quot; have saved their own lives and the lives of their families because they owned a gun does she?

My mother saved her own life in 1982 because she had her pistol in her car at a KMart parking lot.  She took her gun out and actually aimed at a man who was  only interested in harming her.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>She never mentions how many &#8220;citizens&#8221; have saved their own lives and the lives of their families because they owned a gun does she?</p>
<p>My mother saved her own life in 1982 because she had her pistol in her car at a KMart parking lot.  She took her gun out and actually aimed at a man who was  only interested in harming her.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

