The W
Views: 98986943
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
17.9.07 2251
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Assault Weapons Ban set to expire Monday
This thread has 6 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(670 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (44 total)
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 87/1091
EXP: 2194385
For next: 19724

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2806 days
Last activity: 2534 days
#21 Posted on 10.9.04 2137.07
Reposted on: 10.9.11 2138.27
    Originally posted by Malarky
    I've always been an advocate of gun control, up until the last few years. Seeing how many governments are going, however, has made me come to appreciate the value of a country having a citizenry that can, if pressed to, defend themselves from the excesses of a tyrranical state.

    So long as owning a firearm obligates you to use/keep them in a responsible manner, and those who don not do so are severely dealt with by the law, I have no problem with a responsible (however you define that) citizen being able to own a gun.


Well, obviously current laws do require people to practice certain measures of safety. And certainly people that don't follow those laws are most often dealt with severely. But unfortunately, when a gun is improperly used, someone is usually killed. Actually, I think that people should have the right to bear arms, but I just feel that arguing that people should be able to buy any weapon they want just so that liberties are not infringed upon is a poor arguement.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1213/2698
EXP: 8860534
For next: 128285

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
#22 Posted on 10.9.04 2207.08
Reposted on: 10.9.11 2208.20
    Originally posted by Malarky
    I've always been an advocate of gun control, up until the last few years. Seeing how many governments are going, however, has made me come to appreciate the value of a country having a citizenry that can, if pressed to, defend themselves from the excesses of a tyrranical state.


Maybe 75 years ago. Look at the weaponry at the disposal of governments. Even with all the AK-47's in the world, the citizenry dosen't stand a chance. There are much more effective ways to keep you government from becoming a totalitarian regime than arming to the teeth.
SeVen ™
Kishke
Level: 44

Posts: 349/422
EXP: 590035
For next: 21254

Since: 11.1.02
From: Japan

Since last post: 2415 days
Last activity: 2246 days
#23 Posted on 11.9.04 0322.36
Reposted on: 11.9.11 0324.07
Most Republicans I know are against the Assault weapons ban. They are also against minorities owning assault weapons. I believe Chris Rock had a good idea, we should be able to buy any gun we want. The government should just tax the hell out of bullets. If a bullet cost 1000 dollars a piece, people would think twice before wasting a car note on killing someone.
LionJeetSingh
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 162/282
EXP: 307489
For next: 624

Since: 3.3.03

Since last post: 3270 days
Last activity: 3097 days
#24 Posted on 11.9.04 1242.14
Reposted on: 11.9.11 1242.32
To my understanding, the US Constitution gives you the right to bear arms. That definition is quite vague. Who's to say one cannot bear nuclear weapons and claim its a constitutional right?
ekedolphin
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 2275/5387
EXP: 26908959
For next: 223045

Since: 12.1.02
From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA

Since last post: 91 days
Last activity: 1 day
#25 Posted on 12.9.04 0258.59
Reposted on: 12.9.11 0259.01
The Second Amendment states, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. When The Framers wrote about a well-regulated militia, I don't think they were talking about four guys in the back of a Dodge Durango, if I may use a West Wing quote here.

To be honest, I don't mind people owning guns. Not sure exactly why the hell you need an AK-47, though, when a handgun ought to be more than sufficient to protect yourself against a robbery. The only people who typically use AK-47s are soldiers, anti-government militants and terrorists. If you're a soldier and you're on the streets of my city protecting my rights, I will defend to the death your right to carry whatever the hell weapon you wanna carry.

If you're someone else, and you're buying an AK-47 so you can come into my Blockbuster and rob my ass, then to be honest, I don't particularly give a damn if you have rights or not.

Lifting the assault weapons ban won't affect the black market at all, but for those who don't have connections to the black market, it's going to make assault weapons a hell of a lot easier to acquire. An assault weapon is not traditionally used for self-defense, it's used to fuckin' put 20 bullets in someone's body in the blink of an eye. That distinction's very important, if you ask me.

And if we completely ease up on all gun control, what's to stop somebody from going into a mom-and-pop gun shop and walking out with a motherfuckin' grenade launcher?

(edited by ekedolphin on 12.9.04 0359)
The Thrill
Banger
Level: 99

Posts: 1332/2781
EXP: 9879410
For next: 120625

Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 154 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#26 Posted on 13.9.04 0807.32
Reposted on: 13.9.11 0823.33
    Originally posted by ekedolphin
    Not sure exactly why the hell you need an AK-47, though, when a handgun ought to be more than sufficient to protect yourself against a robbery. The only people who typically use AK-47s are soldiers, anti-government militants and terrorists.


Uh, no.

Crooks use assault weapons, too. Hell, when gangsta rap broke in the early 90's, many of 'em talked about AK-47s being the weapon of choice in gang wars.

I remember there being incredible video a few years ago from a bank robbery in LA, where the robbers had assault weapons, completely outgunning the LAPD, who had only sidearms. Hell, most police departments used to carry only revolvers not so long ago.

Handguns are usually not sufficient. I'd feel a lot safer with an M-16 (the weapon I was trained on), or an AK-47 or Chinese SKS.
OndaGrande
Kolbasz
Level: 46

Posts: 136/474
EXP: 665372
For next: 46407

Since: 1.5.03
From: California, Home of THE LAKERS!

Since last post: 62 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#27 Posted on 13.9.04 1908.10
Reposted on: 13.9.11 1908.14
Another thing to remember is that actual AK-47's and M-16's are fully automatic and for the most part still not legal to own except in some states that allow for holders of Federal class 3 and title 2 permits. The weapons that were "banned" were semi automatic and many fell under a blanket that was loosely structured. It was also a ban on the importation and domestic manufacture of certain parts and accessories (hi capacity magazines for example). Other DOJ/ATF "rulings" named certain guns "destructive devices." BTW, the arms used in the bank robbery were illegally modified. And Yes, the Police should have been better armed. And in that particular case, the police actually went to a gun shop and borrowed "assault" type rifles (which were legal at the time) to fight the robbers.
My main oppposition to the legislation is that beside being a violation of the 2nd amendment, it was also a violation of equal protection under the law. We have an even more restrictive (and in my mind unconstitutional) law here in California.I beleive that any thing that is legal in one state should be legal in all states.
The main reason law abiding, decent people own fire arms that followed "assault weapon" guidelines is that for target shooting, they're convinient. Secondarily they and their hi cap mags should be legal to own for a case of when and if you must defend yourself ( for example the L.A. riots). Also hunting laws call for only using magazines with a 5 round or less capacity, so the image of men gunning down deer with 30 rounds is generally not accurate.
The main thing is that criminals don't stop to think along the lines of "I'm going to rob someone, I better only stab them rather than shoot them." Laws need to deal with use. I personally think that anyone using a gun in a crime should be punished harshly. Known members of street gangs should be labeled terrorists and be dealt with. Speeding and Drunk Driving are crimes, but no one has outlawed sports cars and SUVs because of their "Potential" to cause troulbe.
The bottom line is, the right to keep and bear arms and equal protection under the law are constitutionaly guaranteed civil rights and just as important as all the others. Without one, all the others will fall. That is why they were originally put in the constitution, because they create a support structure for each other. A bundle of sticks is harder to break than one stick by itself, but if you break enough sticks, you break the bundle.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 969/1084
EXP: 2430343
For next: 31521

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2952 days
Last activity: 2949 days
#28 Posted on 13.9.04 1942.46
Reposted on: 13.9.11 1943.55
    Originally posted by The Thrill
    Hell, when gangsta rap broke in the early 90's, many of 'em talked about AK-47s being the weapon of choice in gang wars.


Are you seriously getting your news from Geto Boys records?


    Handguns are usually not sufficient.


Not sufficient for what?!?! In all my life, I have never run into a situation in which I've said "Dammit! Handguns are just not sufficient here!" and whipped out an assault rifle.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 140

Posts: 1894/6289
EXP: 32959178
For next: 327309

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#29 Posted on 13.9.04 2105.35
Reposted on: 13.9.11 2105.36
As far as the ban expiring, doesnt somebody in Congress have to introduce legislation to renew the ban?

Anyhow, I dont see a need for a weapon like an AK 47, but, if somebody wants one, either as a collection item, or just to go and shoot targets, like I enjoy doing, I dont see the harm. Thats why I dont have a problem with lengthy background checks and a waiting period before buying any firearm.

Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1573/1759
EXP: 4910326
For next: 82544

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1280 days
Last activity: 46 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#30 Posted on 13.9.04 2119.10
Reposted on: 13.9.11 2121.11
I have to agree with that. If you are damning Bush for letting the thing expire, in the same breath you have to damn Kerry for not introducing a bill that would extend the ban.

Truth be told - I think Kerry is more to blame here. I think it is safe to say Bush has no interest in renewing it, and he isn't. Kerry, on the other hand, pays lip service to the renewal, is in a much better position to get the ball rolling on that, and is doing nothing.

So - Kerry and Bush have the same position on the matter (by their actions), but Kerry is lying about it. I can't be the only one who sees this...If Kerry was serious, he would start the ball rolling, and dare Bush to oppose it.

Now that I think of it, has Kerry actually used his position for ANYTHING since he started campaigning? I haven't heard anything in the way of new bills he wrote, or sponsored, or voted for, that shows the people that he really does support what he claims to -

(edited by Pool-Boy on 13.9.04 1921)
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 91/1091
EXP: 2194385
For next: 19724

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2806 days
Last activity: 2534 days
#31 Posted on 13.9.04 2224.00
Reposted on: 13.9.11 2227.58
"Now that I think of it, has Kerry actually used his position for ANYTHING since he started campaigning? I haven't heard anything in the way of new bills he wrote, or sponsored, or voted for, that shows the people that he really does support what he claims to -"

No, he hasn't. He's running on that Anti-Bush platform as well as the I-really-served-in Vietnam-honest-I-did-you can check-the-records platform. Both of them fine choices....for the Republicans.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 971/1084
EXP: 2430343
For next: 31521

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2952 days
Last activity: 2949 days
#32 Posted on 14.9.04 0028.21
Reposted on: 14.9.11 0029.02
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I think it is safe to say Bush has no interest in renewing it, and he isn't.


"It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society" - George W. Bush 1999
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1574/1759
EXP: 4910326
For next: 82544

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1280 days
Last activity: 46 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#33 Posted on 14.9.04 0044.34
Reposted on: 14.9.11 0051.28
Let me be very clear. I support the second amendment. Ive been a hunter all my life. But I dont think we need to make the job of the terrorists any easier. I stand with the vast majority of the American people and call on George W. Bush to protect our police and our security and keep assault weapons off our streets. - John Kerry, 2004.

So where was Kerry pushing for that bill for Bush's signature? Last time I checked, Kerry was a Senator. Congress is an independant branch of the federal government, right? The President can't pass bills, he can only sign them. Where was Kerry's bill extending the ban? Where in this situation did John Kerry show leadership? Here was his chance to prove that as President, he could work with both parties, to accomplish something that he feels is best for this country. Would he fail? Maybe. But he didn't even try.

Real winner the Dems picked here. Cares so much about his issues that he will go out on the stump and blame other people for not fighting his causes. If he can't even lead as a Senator, use his position and power to advance the his ideas (or at least try), what the hell is he going to do with the White House? My guess is, same as he is doing now. Nothing.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 13.9.04 2245)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3927/4700
EXP: 21498308
For next: 338354

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1234 days
Last activity: 1031 days
#34 Posted on 14.9.04 0620.54
Reposted on: 14.9.11 0621.11
That all makes a massive assumption that Kerry shows up for work on a regular basis...
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1220/2698
EXP: 8860534
For next: 128285

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
#35 Posted on 14.9.04 0819.11
Reposted on: 14.9.11 0819.30
If I have heard and read correctly, many states have bans on these weapons which will remain in place.
fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 2421/2679
EXP: 9154826
For next: 162532

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3226 days
Last activity: 3226 days
#36 Posted on 14.9.04 0831.24
Reposted on: 14.9.11 0833.05
Isn't Kerry a little busy running for President to be fighting for a bill that is 110% guranteed to fail right now? Isn't he fighting for it MORE by trying to get elected so he'll have a much better chance at passing a new bill?
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1251/1528
EXP: 4069115
For next: 122033

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2794 days
Last activity: 2637 days
AIM:  
#37 Posted on 14.9.04 1218.58
Reposted on: 14.9.11 1219.16
Has anyone done any research on this ban?

Everything I've read, from calm, reputable sources, indicates that the ban was stupid anyway. All this hysteria about Mid-East style militias roaming the streets is just that - hysteria.

It's been pointed out repeatedly that the "assault weapons ban" is so vague as to be useless.

Here is another link explaining modifications made to the AR15 which make it legal under the 1994 bill. In case you don't know, this is an AR15.

(image removed)

That gun is LEGAL under the assault weapons ban. The ban which half of you seem to think is the only thing standing between us and Armageddon.


    This AR15 is a legal post-ban weapon. It has only a detachable magazine and a pistol grip and is therefore legal. This particular rifle is a highly customized and finely tuned target rifle. It has the "flattop" modification that removes the military carry handle and has special target sights installed. The device on the muzzle is a muzzle weight and adds weight to the barrel so that the shooter can reduce recoil and achieve a good balance. To complete it, the rifle has a longer than normal barrel and a special hooked stock (but not a collapsible one).


Source.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 140

Posts: 1899/6289
EXP: 32959178
For next: 327309

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#38 Posted on 14.9.04 1316.35
Reposted on: 14.9.11 1317.30
    Originally posted by fuelinjected
    Isn't Kerry a little busy running for President to be fighting for a bill that is 110% guranteed to fail right now? Isn't he fighting for it MORE by trying to get elected so he'll have a much better chance at passing a new bill?


It takes about twenty minutes to draft a legislation, especially if you are going to just state it is to extend existing legislation.

But, using your logic, wouldnt you assume that John Kerry probably has stopped accepting his Congressional Salary? I wonder if THAT has happened, since he is too busy to represent the people of Mass.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1575/1759
EXP: 4910326
For next: 82544

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1280 days
Last activity: 46 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#39 Posted on 14.9.04 1616.47
Reposted on: 14.9.11 1616.59
    Originally posted by fuelinjected
    Isn't Kerry a little busy running for President to be fighting for a bill that is 110% guranteed to fail right now? Isn't he fighting for it MORE by trying to get elected so he'll have a much better chance at passing a new bill?


If Kerry is going to stop doing his job to run a campaign, he should quit. Or is the stress of having so much to do overwhelming him? Maybe he shouldn't be President then?

Here is the thing - Kerry drafting a bill extending the Assault Weapons ban would have been a win/win situation for him. #1 - he would have had a campaign issue. If the bill passed, but Bush vetoed it, he would have something current to point out to the people, showing how he is different than Bush, something his voting record could back up. "See? I care about you, I wanted these weapons off the street, so I took action. But Bush vetoed it." If as many people care about this ban as he thinks, this would be a huge boost to his campaign. If the bill didn't pass, all of the democrats running against sitting Republican congressmen would have an issue as well, making those races tighter. The Democratic party could gain ground as a whole by picking an issue, fighting for it, and saying "If we were back in power, these things WOULD pass."

And if the bill passed, and Bush signed it, Kerry could take TOTAL credit for drafting a bill, gaining bi-partisan support, and getting it enacted. He would come out looking like a golden, ideal Presidential candidate.

But no, instead he just whined that Bush didn't ask for something that he supposedly supported, and had the power to bring to the floor.

They say Carville is running his campaign - well, if this is the kind of advice he is giving Kerry, the guy is either not the genius people say he is, or Kerry is getting set up. Proposing that bill was a no-brainer, and could only help Kerry in the race. And he blew it.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 14.9.04 1424)
policus
Loukanika
Level: 8

Posts: 3/9
EXP: 1638
For next: 549

Since: 17.8.04

Since last post: 3404 days
Last activity: 3381 days
#40 Posted on 14.9.04 1727.37
Reposted on: 14.9.11 1727.50
    Originally posted by LionJeetSingh
    To my understanding, the US Constitution gives you the right to bear arms. That definition is quite vague. Who's to say one cannot bear nuclear weapons and claim its a constitutional right?


1. The the US Government
2. For those that think the UN is important or live outside the US the IAEA, International Atomic Energy Association.

The US supreme court has placed restrictions on what arms a citizen can have under the 2nd amendment. Generally, I think, and I'm sorry I can't site the courts cases, you can't have explosive devices mines, grenades, claymores, and any gun/riffle that is fully automatic, ie I pull the trigger down and bullets just keep coming out, like video games, for those out there that know nothing about guns.

I think think no matter what side of this issue you're on seeing this law die is a good thing. It does nothing to deter crime and confuses people that are gun enthuses.(see the test earlier posted)

Although the right to 'bare arms' is given by the 2nd amendment gun ownership like having children or operating a car is a major responsibility and should not be taken lightly.

Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Quarter of Germans want country resplit
Next thread: Rathergate an Anti-Kerry Conspiracy?
Previous thread: Report: Syria tested Chemical Weapons on refugees in Darfur
(670 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Assault Weapons Ban set to expire MondayRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.286 seconds.