PDA

View Full Version : Kerry Tells Bush to 'Get Real' on Assault Weapons


Donger
09-10-2004, 03:36 PM
By Patricia Wilson

ST. LOUIS (Reuters) - Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) on Friday said President Bush (news - web sites)'s failure to fight for a renewal of a ban on assault weapons will make it easier for terrorists to get the lethal weapons.

Campaigning in Missouri, where he trails Bush in opinion polls less than two months before the Nov. 2 election, Kerry said as a hunter and outdoorsman he vowed he would never try to change the Second Amendment to the Constitution giving Americans the right to bear arms.

Under a 10-year ban enacted in 1994, weapons such as AK-47s, TEC-9s, and Uzis were outlawed, as were high capacity ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. That law expires on Monday and Congress does not plan to extend it.

Kerry rebuked Bush and others for "talking about the war on terror, trying to scare Americans." Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said this week that if the Democrat were elected the United States could be hit by another attack like the on one Sept. 11, 2001.

"It's real, we've got a war," Kerry said. "But we should do more than just talk about it and try to scare people about it and make it a political issue."

Citing the 9/11 commission and other reports, Kerry said that al Qaeda, blamed for the attacks on America three years ago, had issued a manual that urged followers to "come to America and buy assault weapons."

"Why is George Bush (news - web sites) making the job of terrorists easier and making the job for America's police officers harder?" he asked in a separate written statement.

The Massachusetts senator told a town hall meeting in St. Louis: "You can't fight a war on terror and you can't make our streets safe ... (by) selling assault weapons in the streets of America.

"But George Bush who says 'Oh, I'm for that' never asked the Congress to pass it, never pushed the Congress to pass it, never stood up, caves into the NRA (National Rifle Association), gives into the special interests and America's streets will not be as safe because of the choice George Bush is making."

TRIES APPEAL TO GUNOWNERS

Kerry, a New England blueblood who served 20 years in the Senate after two decorated tours in the Vietnam War, has tried to appeal to the more conservative voters in important battleground states by presenting himself as a lifelong outdoorsman.

In the past week, he has been photographed trap shooting in Ohio and holding a gun given to him by a supporter at a rally in Racine, West Virginia.

"I mean, heavens to Betsy folks, we've had that law on the books for the last 10 years and there's not a gun owner in America who can stand up and say they tried to take my guns away," Kerry said. "I mean, let's get real. Let's get real."

He told several hundred supporters of his pheasant hunting trip in Iowa earlier this year when he was trailing in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"I am a hunter and I'm a gun owner and I have hunted since I was about a teenager and I respect it ... and I believe in the Second Amendment," he said. "And I'll tell you this, as a hunter, I've never ever thought about going hunting with an AK-47 or an Uzi or anything else. Never."

Bush has said he would sign an extension of the assault weapons ban but he did not press for its renewal by the Congress. The politically powerful National Rifle Association gun lobby has made killing it a top priority, and some lawmakers are fearful of crossing the NRA weeks before congressional elections. Polls show a majority of Americans support renewing the ban.

The NRA has not yet formally endorsed Bush's re-election bid. A Kerry aide said the senator had never been a member of the NRA because he did not agree with its policies.

jAZ
09-10-2004, 03:39 PM
He's got a good point.

Donger
09-10-2004, 03:40 PM
He's got a good point.

What's that?

KC Dan
09-10-2004, 03:41 PM
Isn't John Kerry in Congress? I'm pretty sure it's his and others in the Congress' job to initiate bills, debate them and vote on them. But, I could be wrong.

:banghead:

stevieray
09-10-2004, 03:41 PM
[QUOTE=Donger]By Patricia Wilson

ST. LOUIS (Reuters) -

"And I'll tell you this, as a hunter, I've never ever thought about going hunting with an AK-47 or an Uzi or anything else. Never."

QUOTE]

this guy is becoming a full bore drama queen.

Donger
09-10-2004, 03:45 PM
Kerry said as a hunter and outdoorsman he vowed he would never try to change the Second Amendment to the Constitution giving Americans the right to bear arms.

Didn't he already, to a certain degree? By banning certain firearms, isn't that tacitly saying that we only have the right to bear CERTAIN kind of arms?

Raiderhader
09-10-2004, 03:48 PM
"I mean, heavens to Betsy folks, we've had that law on the books for the last 10 years and there's not a gun owner in America who can stand up and say they tried to take my guns away," Kerry said. "I mean, let's get real. Let's get real."


Wanna bet Mr. Senator?



This guy is so out of touch.....

KCFalcon59
09-10-2004, 03:49 PM
Since when do you need a gun to hunt down rich women to live off of?

Cochise
09-10-2004, 03:50 PM
Too bad sKerry himself was too busy running a campaign to be in Washington trying to get the ban extended. Guess the issue wasn't really all that important to him after all.

Saulbadguy
09-10-2004, 04:04 PM
I wouldn't focus on this issue if I was Kerry. The ban proved to be ineffective. I wouldn't renew it.

jAZ
09-10-2004, 04:05 PM
What's that?
Legalizing the sale of assault weapons seems to me like a bad idea given the current threat of terrorism that we and the world faces.

Donger
09-10-2004, 04:08 PM
Legalizing the sale of assault weapons seems to me like a bad idea given the current threat of terrorism that we and the world faces.

Jezzus.

How many laws did the 9/11 terorrists break, jAZ?

This has always been my beef with gun control laws: are we trying to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals or law-abiding citizens?

jAZ
09-10-2004, 04:09 PM
Isn't John Kerry in Congress? I'm pretty sure it's his and others in the Congress' job to initiate bills, debate them and vote on them. But, I could be wrong.

:banghead:
The Republican controlled congress won't allow it. Not sure how you are trying to turn it on Kerry.

Saulbadguy
09-10-2004, 04:10 PM
Legalizing the sale of assault weapons seems to me like a bad idea given the current threat of terrorism that we and the world faces.
That and Gunther_Fan.

2bikemike
09-10-2004, 04:12 PM
Legalizing the sale of assault weapons seems to me like a bad idea given the current threat of terrorism that we and the world faces.

(Sarcasm on)I agree because I know that if we outlaw the guns the outlaws won't be able to get them.(Sarcasm Off)

KC Dan
09-10-2004, 04:14 PM
The Republican controlled congress won't allow it. Not sure how you are trying to turn it on Kerry.
Seeing that he probably couldn't even find his office or the actual debating floor because he hasn't spent much time there, I think the following works well. Glass Houses + Rocks = sKerry

He hasn't tried to do squat about gun control laws other than pointing his finger at individuals not in Congress.

Raiderhader
09-10-2004, 04:22 PM
Legalizing the sale of assault weapons seems to me like a bad idea given the current threat of terrorism that we and the world faces.


I am not even going to fight this battle right now.

However the first part must be addressed. No one is attempting to legalize assualt weapons.

jAZ
09-10-2004, 04:26 PM
Jezzus.

How many laws did the 9/11 terorrists break, jAZ?

This has always been my beef with gun control laws: are we trying to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals or law-abiding citizens?
So let's take down this and all other legal barriers that are in place to help protect against terrorist acts?

That's a terrible argument.

Kerry is right on this one too. Hell, numerous Republicans in Congress, supposedly the President, and from what I 60%+ of americans and even a 1/3 of the NRA agrees that ban should be retained.

Donger
09-10-2004, 04:29 PM
So let's take down this and all other legal barriers that are in place to help protect against terrorist acts?

That's a terrible argument.

Kerry is right on this one too. Hell, numerous Republicans in Congress, supposedly the President, and from what I 60%+ of americans and even a 1/3 of the NRA agrees that ban should be retained.

Are terrorists criminals?

jAZ
09-10-2004, 04:30 PM
No one is attempting to legalize assualt weapons.
I'm not sure what you want to call it, but someone in Congress is DELIBERATELY allowing the ban on assult weapons that is currently in place to expire and legalize assult weapons.

OldTownChief
09-10-2004, 04:30 PM
"I mean, heavens to Betsy folks"

ROFL How could anyone vote for a guy that still uses that phraze?

jAZ
09-10-2004, 04:31 PM
Are terrorists criminals?
This is stupid.

Make your case in 1 post Donger. I'm not playing this game. It's a waste of time.

Raiderhader
09-10-2004, 04:32 PM
I'm not sure what you want to call it, but someone in Congress is DELIBERATELY allowing the ban on assult weapons that is currently in place to expire and legalize assult weapons.


Those are not assualt weapons. Assualt weapons are military type weapons with the ability to shoot fully automatic.

All the weapons on the so called assualt weapons ban list are only semi-auto.

Try again.

Donger
09-10-2004, 04:34 PM
This is stupid.

Make your case in 1 post Donger. I'm not playing this game. It's a waste of time.

I already did: "are we trying to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals or law-abiding citizens?"

Terrorists are criminals. Criminals, by definition, break laws. Therefore, gun control laws only keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

I asked you the question and you chose not to answer it.

Iowanian
09-10-2004, 04:36 PM
Terrorists, Gang bangers, Mafia and other criminals have been able to have Assault weapons Throughout the ban....................The only people this affects are Law abiding citizens who would like the oportunity to use their 2nd Amendment right.


I don't tell you who's dick to put in your butt....don't tell me how big of a hole I can shoot in a milk jug.

Raiderhader
09-10-2004, 04:40 PM
ABC News just made an ass out of themselves on this issue.

The reporter was talking about St. Loius and said that the murder rate has already reached what it was all of last year. The ban has been in affect for the past ten years and is still in affect right now. So in other words this nit wit defeated his own argument, because things have actually gotten worse under the ban (at least in St. Louis). ROFL

jAZ
09-10-2004, 04:52 PM
I already did: "are we trying to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals or law-abiding citizens?"

Terrorists are criminals. Criminals, by definition, break laws. Therefore, gun control laws only keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

I asked you the question and you chose not to answer it.
You asked a question, that's not making a case. You know that, I know that, the entire board knows that.

I don't know why you insist on these incremental, back-and-forth games. The best I can think is that you hope to trap people in logical loops and hope to avoid it yourself.

It's stilly, and a complete waste of time.

jAZ
09-10-2004, 04:57 PM
Terrorists are criminals. Criminals, by definition, break laws. Therefore, gun control laws only keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

I asked you the question and you chose not to answer it.
As for the case you made in this post...

It's a bogus argument.

The size of the black market is driven by the supply of available guns. If more assault weapons are manufactured and sold legally, they are guns that weren't previously available to make it into the black market.

Taking down the legal restrictions just makes it easier to get hold of these weapons. Which is a stupid thing to do.

Raiderhader
09-10-2004, 05:02 PM
You asked a question, that's not making a case. You know that, I know that, the entire board knows that.

I don't know why you insist on these incremental, back-and-forth games. The best I can think is that you hope to trap people in logical loops and hope to avoid it yourself.

It's stilly, and a complete waste of time.


Not true. You can make very valid points with questions.

jAZ
09-10-2004, 05:05 PM
Not true. You can make very valid points with questions.
It's not so much the questions persay.. I ask questions all the time. He wastes a great deal of time asking incremental questions. It's basically the scocratic method, but it's a total waste of time.

Get your thoughts out and move on.

Soupnazi
09-10-2004, 05:07 PM
Legalizing the sale of assault weapons seems to me like a bad idea given the current threat of terrorism that we and the world faces.

Do you seriously think the mujahadeen is walking into a gun shop in NYC and buying AK-47's?

Point 1: Gun ownership over the last 10 years has risen steadily in this country to an all-time high currently. This is concurrent with a steady decrease in violent crime over the past 10 years.

Point 2: I believe it's 37 states now which have concealed carry laws on the books. Every one of the states that has enacted such laws has seen a decrease in violent crime, including gun crimes.

Certainly if gun ownership was so dangerous, then the converse would be happening, no?

Raiderhader
09-10-2004, 05:09 PM
It's not so much the questions persay.. I ask questions all the time. He wastes a great deal of time asking incremental questions. It's basically the scocratic method, but it's a total waste of time.

Get your thoughts out and move on.


I cannot speak for Donger on this, but I can offer my view on it.

Many here cry about generalizations, if he is taking his time to fully understand what you are saying than he cannot be accused of generalizing you or anyone else. Which do you prefer?

Plus it is a good way to take points one at a time and it it forces people to walk through their arguments step by step. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, unless you are afraid to walk through your arguments step by step......

jAZ
09-10-2004, 05:10 PM
Do you seriously think the mujahadeen is walking into a gun shop in NYC and buying AK-47's?

Point 1: Gun ownership over the last 10 years has risen steadily in this country to an all-time high currently. This is concurrent with a steady decrease in violent crime over the past 10 years.

Point 2: I believe it's 37 states now which have concealed carry laws on the books. Every one of the states that has enacted such laws has seen a decrease in violent crime, including gun crimes.

Certainly if gun ownership was so dangerous, then the converse would be happening, no?
That's a total logical fallacy.

Raiderhader
09-10-2004, 05:11 PM
That a total logical fallacy.


Only to someone who does not think logically....

Soupnazi
09-10-2004, 05:15 PM
That's a total logical fallacy.

Bullshit. The logical fallacy would be saying that the increase in gun ownership was the direct cause of these effects. That's debateable, but that's not what I said, if you'll notice.

Quite simply, an increase in gun ownership does not correspond to an increase in gun crime in this country. Period. You can hold your fingers in your ears and go "la,la,la,la, I can't hear you" if you want to, though.

KCWolfman
09-10-2004, 05:37 PM
John Kerry is right. After all, those nasty international terrorists regularly stop by gun shows in Alabama and Idaho to buy their assault weapons.

Donger
09-10-2004, 05:44 PM
As for the case you made in this post...

It's a bogus argument.

The size of the black market is driven by the supply of available guns. If more assault weapons are manufactured and sold legally, they are guns that weren't previously available to make it into the black market.

Taking down the legal restrictions just makes it easier to get hold of these weapons. Which is a stupid thing to do.

I remember reading somewhere that the number of assault weapons on the black market has actually increased because of the ban. Somewhat analogous to the prohibtion of alcohol.

srvy
09-10-2004, 05:48 PM
Jaz last i heard the terrorists who attacked our country used box cutters and airplanes wanna ban those too. In fact truth be told only assault weapons used against our citizens happened in Waco texas buy Janet Renos Gestapo!

KCWolfman
09-10-2004, 05:49 PM
I remember reading somewhere that the number of assault weapons on the black market has actually increased because of the ban. Somewhat analogous to the prohibtion of alcohol.
People who want the ban to continue are uneducated and honestly are too ignorant to understand what an "assault weapon" is.

I can get a deer rifle that holds as many bullets and does as much damage as many of the banned weapons. The people who want the bans watch too many Stallone movies to understand what a real assault weapon is.

KCWolfman
09-10-2004, 05:50 PM
Jaz last i heard the terrorists who attacked our country used box cutters and airplanes wanna ban those too. In fact truth be told only assault weapons used against our citizens happened in Waco texas buy Janet Renos Gestapo!
Ruby Ridge too.

Yea, Clinton. If we ban assault weapons, only your government can have them - regardless of who they kill.

Donger
09-10-2004, 05:50 PM
People who want the ban to continue are uneducated and honestly are too ignorant to understand what an "assault weapon" is.

I can get a deer rifle that holds as many bullets and does as much damage as many of the banned weapons. The people who want the bans watch too many Stallone movies to understand what a real assault weapon is.

I know. I just got tired of putting assault weapons in quotations around 1994.

Donger
09-10-2004, 05:53 PM
It's not so much the questions persay.. I ask questions all the time. He wastes a great deal of time asking incremental questions. It's basically the scocratic method, but it's a total waste of time.

Get your thoughts out and move on.

You may notice that I only ask you incremental questions. And, I do so with good reason.

KCWolfman
09-10-2004, 05:53 PM
I know. I just got tired of putting assault weapons in quotations around 1994.
See squiggle

whoman69
09-10-2004, 06:09 PM
Jezzus.

How many laws did the 9/11 terorrists break, jAZ?

This has always been my beef with gun control laws: are we trying to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals or law-abiding citizens?
Guess we need to do away with the laws against murder, theft and drunk driving too. If your definition of a bad law is one that is broken then there would be no laws on the books.

The only function of these weapons are to kill lots of people. If you think you are safer with one of these weapons, how much safer are you if the people you are trying to protect yourself from also have them?

Raiderhader
09-10-2004, 06:13 PM
Guess we need to do away with the laws against murder, theft and drunk driving too. If your definition of a bad law is one that is broken then there would be no laws on the books.

When we have a Constitutional right to drive drunk, steal, and murder, get back to me.

The only function of these weapons are to kill lots of people. If you think you are safer with one of these weapons, how much safer are you if the people you are trying to protect yourself from also have them?

Why do you think laws are going to stop criminals from getting these guns? Criminals are criminals for a reason, because they don't obey laws.

The ONLY people these laws are affecting are the law abiding citizens.

srvy
09-10-2004, 06:18 PM
Guess we need to do away with the laws against murder, theft and drunk driving too. If your definition of a bad law is one that is broken then there would be no laws on the books.

The only function of these weapons are to kill lots of people. If you think you are safer with one of these weapons, how much safer are you if the people you are trying to protect yourself from also have them?

2bikemike
09-10-2004, 06:25 PM
Just a little FYI for all you uninformed anti Assault weapon types

As a kid growing up I had a Ruger 22 semi Automatic rifle. I think it held like 18 -20 rounds of ammo.

Under the expiring Assault Weapon law that gun would have been illegal. It was far from an assault weapon.

In 1987 I purchased a Berretta 9mm it had a 15 round clip IIRC. That too became illegal. It was not at an Assault weapon.

srvy
09-10-2004, 06:33 PM
Guess we need to do away with the laws against murder, theft and drunk driving too. If your definition of a bad law is one that is broken then there would be no laws on the books.

The only function of these weapons are to kill lots of people. If you think you are safer with one of these weapons, how much safer are you if the people you are trying to protect yourself from also have them?
No its a tool made by man much like a farm implament. Its used to shoot bullets.Now the choice a man has is does he want to set out tin cans and and plink away or join a gun club and target shoot or just collect military style weapons as a hobby just like collecting football cards. And then theres the small % that wants to aquire one illegally to kill someone. So why focus on the large majority of legal owners and ban them from law abideing citizen with unconstitutional laws instead of enforcing the laws on the books already and prosecute to the hilt the tiny % that use these weapon for dasterdly deeds. Ill never understand liberal thinking to persicute the honest citizins and protect to the fullest the scurge of society.

stevieray
09-10-2004, 06:40 PM
This is how these things start. Sometimes I think the only reason we are still free is because we have the RIGHT to bear arms.

Cochise
09-10-2004, 07:08 PM
The truth is, beyond cosmetic and ergonomic differences, there is nothing of significance that sets the banned weapons apart from others that were unaffected by the ban.

There are legal weapons that fire the same rounds, at the same rate, have removable magazines, etc. The only difference is one is scary-looking and the other looks more like any other rifle.

KCWolfman
09-10-2004, 07:25 PM
Guess we need to do away with the laws against murder, theft and drunk driving too. If your definition of a bad law is one that is broken then there would be no laws on the books.

The only function of these weapons are to kill lots of people. If you think you are safer with one of these weapons, how much safer are you if the people you are trying to protect yourself from also have them?
The only function of a large SUV is to show you have money. They are not driven off road and the average American doesn't need one. They certainly kill more people than guns (legal,illegal, or combined).

Using your horribly flawed logic, we must assume that SUVs should be made illegal to anyone who does not haul large loads for a living.

Baby Lee
09-10-2004, 07:58 PM
I mean, heavens to Betsy folks, . .
Go awn ta bed Opie, Aint Bea's been dippin' in the cookin' sherry again.

ROFL ROFL

Iowanian
09-10-2004, 09:08 PM
Only to someone who does not think logically....

Or in the quoted case....someone who thinks Phallicly.


I need to go get a bigger clip for the Rueger 22.

PastorMikH
09-10-2004, 09:46 PM
This article is so full of it.


"""Kerry said as a hunter and outdoorsman he vowed he would never try to change the Second Amendment to the Constitution giving Americans the right to bear arms. """



Then why has he voted for almost all gun legistlation bills since being in the Senate?



"""The Massachusetts senator told a town hall meeting in St. Louis: "You can't fight a war on terror and you can't make our streets safe ... (by) selling assault weapons in the streets of America."""


You make them illegal and they can still be bought on the streets of America - only thing is, all of the bad guys will have them and the honest civilians will be unarmed.



"""But George Bush who says 'Oh, I'm for that' never asked the Congress to pass it, never pushed the Congress to pass it, never stood up, caves into the NRA (National Rifle Association), gives into the special interests and America's streets will not be as safe because of the choice George Bush is making."""


When did GWB say that? I remember him talking about this ban, but it was always concerning him being for letting it expire.



""""I mean, heavens to Betsy folks, we've had that law on the books for the last 10 years and there's not a gun owner in America who can stand up and say they tried to take my guns away," Kerry said. "I mean, let's get real. Let's get real.""""


Perhaps that is because the ban made it illegal to have the weapons shipped into the US, not illegal to own in the US. Had they actually tried to confiscate the weapons it would have been a completely different story.



""""I am a hunter and I'm a gun owner and I have hunted since I was about a teenager and I respect it ... and I believe in the Second Amendment," he said. "And I'll tell you this, as a hunter, I've never ever thought about going hunting with an AK-47 or an Uzi or anything else. Never.""""


Perhaps that is because he has never been calling coyotes and found himself surrounded by half a dozen of them at close range. There was one day when a friend and I were out shooting prarie dogs. He had a AR-16 in the 223 cal., I had a Mauser 22-250. We were walking along in grass up to our ankles when we came accross a rattlesnake. My 22-250 was worthless at that range with the scope. I was VERY glad he had that "Asault weapon".

jspchief
09-11-2004, 12:05 AM
The truth is, beyond cosmetic and ergonomic differences, there is nothing of significance that sets the banned weapons apart from others that were unaffected by the ban.

There are legal weapons that fire the same rounds, at the same rate, have removable magazines, etc. The only difference is one is scary-looking and the other looks more like any other rifle.

EXACTLY! probably 75% of the people that want to ban assault rifles have no idea how ridiculous the current law is, because they haven't a clue what the difference is between one gun and the next. I think the reason they're letting the law expire is so that they can write a law that actually addresses what they want to address. It's a novel concept, but maybe it should be based a little more on what the weapon does, instead of what it looks like.

BCD
09-11-2004, 01:58 AM
Guess we need to do away with the laws against murder, theft and drunk driving too. If your definition of a bad law is one that is broken then there would be no laws on the books.

The only function of these weapons are to kill lots of people. If you think you are safer with one of these weapons, how much safer are you if the people you are trying to protect yourself from also have them?
:spock:

whoman69
09-11-2004, 06:18 AM
The only function of a large SUV is to show you have money. They are not driven off road and the average American doesn't need one. They certainly kill more people than guns (legal,illegal, or combined).

Using your horribly flawed logic, we must assume that SUVs should be made illegal to anyone who does not haul large loads for a living.
You need to back up that claim. What % of fatal accidents in the US involved SUVs?
Certainly SUVs are not good for America as the current gas prices will indicate but neither are alcohol or cigarettes. We tried a law against alcohol and one to ban SUVs would go over just as well if not worse. There is also intent. How many people driving in an auto are planning to go out and kill someone. Someone who pulls a trigger against a human being wants them dead.

Baby Lee
09-11-2004, 06:21 AM
How many people driving in an auto are planning to go out and kill someone. Someone who pulls a trigger against a human being wants them dead.
Surely even you can spot the inequality in your examples.
Either ask "how many people who point the auto they are driving at a human wants that human dead" or "how many people who pull a trigger, pull them while pointed at a human being."

whoman69
09-11-2004, 06:22 AM
EXACTLY! probably 75% of the people that want to ban assault rifles have no idea how ridiculous the current law is, because they haven't a clue what the difference is between one gun and the next. I think the reason they're letting the law expire is so that they can write a law that actually addresses what they want to address. It's a novel concept, but maybe it should be based a little more on what the weapon does, instead of what it looks like.
Those who are letting the ban expire wish no bill to take its place. The NRA rallied hard against this and its stated policy of the NRA that any gun legislation is wrong.
The current ban may be flawed but it shouldn't be just thrown out. Pass it again and then make ammendments that make sense. We owe it to our police departments who were outgunned by gangs and criminals before this ban went into place. Don't make it easier on the bad guys just so a few people can have their toys to play around with on the weekends.

whoman69
09-11-2004, 06:48 AM
When we have a Constitutional right to drive drunk, steal, and murder, get back to me.
Why do you think laws are going to stop criminals from getting these guns? Criminals are criminals for a reason, because they don't obey laws.
The ONLY people these laws are affecting are the law abiding citizens.
Every Constitutional right has its limits but the NRA seems to think there should be no limits on the 2nd Amendment.
The 1st Amendment right to free speech does not cover libel, slander, kiddie porn and incitement to riot. The 5th Amendment is not covered when a person has begun to testify before a grand jury. Religious freedom is out the door when it involves human sacrifice and bigomy.
You don't think the 2nd Amendment should be limited to assault weapons, where is the line then?
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.
It doesn't say what type of arms. Should private ownership of nuclear arms be allowed. How about chemical weapons, missiles, tanks?

Cochise
09-11-2004, 07:18 AM
You need to back up that claim. What % of fatal accidents in the US involved SUVs?

In what percentage of gun deaths were 'assault weapons' being used?

KCWolfman
09-11-2004, 07:24 AM
You need to back up that claim. What % of fatal accidents in the US involved SUVs?
Certainly SUVs are not good for America as the current gas prices will indicate but neither are alcohol or cigarettes. We tried a law against alcohol and one to ban SUVs would go over just as well if not worse. There is also intent. How many people driving in an auto are planning to go out and kill someone. Someone who pulls a trigger against a human being wants them dead.
So it isn't the fact that more people are killed by an object, but rather the intent you are protecting us from?

Wow, thank goodness someone is smart enough to know the intent of all others in this country and is willing to think for us. Maybe next you can save us from bad books?

Touchy feely laws are nice in Where the Wild Things Are and The Narnia Chronicles, but in the real world, application and results are more important.

KCWolfman
09-11-2004, 07:24 AM
Every Constitutional right has its limits but the NRA seems to think there should be no limits on the 2nd Amendment.
The 1st Amendment right to free speech does not cover libel, slander, kiddie porn and incitement to riot. The 5th Amendment is not covered when a person has begun to testify before a grand jury. Religious freedom is out the door when it involves human sacrifice and bigomy.
You don't think the 2nd Amendment should be limited to assault weapons, where is the line then?

It doesn't say what type of arms. Should private ownership of nuclear arms be allowed. How about chemical weapons, missiles, tanks?
Actually, yes there are limits - noted to the items you listed and more.

Raiderhader
09-11-2004, 07:40 AM
Those who are letting the ban expire wish no bill to take its place. The NRA rallied hard against this and its stated policy of the NRA that any gun legislation is wrong.
The current ban may be flawed but it shouldn't be just thrown out. Pass it again and then make ammendments that make sense.

NO! It does not need to be. TRUE assualt weapons are already illegal to own by civilians.

We owe it to our police departments who were outgunned by gangs and criminals before this ban went into place. Don't make it easier on the bad guys just so a few people can have their toys to play around with on the weekends.


Uhm, how about the police actually try arming themselves properly? No matter how many laws you pass, the bad guys are still going to use whatever weapon they want, and the police will still be out gunned.

Raiderhader
09-11-2004, 07:44 AM
Every Constitutional right has its limits but the NRA seems to think there should be no limits on the 2nd Amendment.
The 1st Amendment right to free speech does not cover libel, slander, kiddie porn and incitement to riot. The 5th Amendment is not covered when a person has begun to testify before a grand jury. Religious freedom is out the door when it involves human sacrifice and bigomy. You don't think the 2nd Amendment should be limited to assault weapons, where is the line then?

I am content with the line being drawn right there.

It doesn't say what type of arms. Should private ownership of nuclear arms be allowed. How about chemical weapons, missiles, tanks?

I am the wrong person to ask this question of.

Brock
09-11-2004, 07:44 AM
We owe it to our police departments who were outgunned by gangs and criminals before this ban went into place. .

We owe it to our police departments to get them better guns. That and a paycheck, and that's about it.

KCWolfman
09-11-2004, 07:55 AM
We owe it to our police departments who were outgunned by gangs and criminals before this ban went into place.

In 1997 two Russian bank robbers shot out with police for almost 45 minutes in open streets during a Los Angeles bank robbery with illegally obtained weapons. The LA Police were so undergunned, they went to a locally gun shop to get better weapons while the robbers were shooting up the streets.


1997 is three years after the "assault weapons" ban. Seems like your argument is flawed.

Cochise
09-11-2004, 07:56 AM
We owe it to our police departments to get them better guns. That and a paycheck, and that's about it.

So... we owe it to our police departments who were outgunned. But we need legislation to ensure that regular citizens are outgunned by criminals.

The 'outgunned' concept is ludicrous anyway. What aspect of the ban affects the leathality of the weapons in question?

srvy
09-11-2004, 09:38 AM
Its the old guns kill people argument again . My gun since the hunting season has sit locked in my gun safe and collects dust . you make it sound as if its gonna walk out and kill someone. Its people who kill and theve been doing it since the stone ages with whatever means available.I think libs watch too many movies where every bad guy has a tech 9. In fact id like to know what % assault weapons play in in gun deaths ill betcha its nearly nill.Any way it is sure good bleeding heart libs are so concerned with deaths in america !!! Oh wait i guess its what kinda death concerns then cuz we know unborn
babies is not one of them.You libs argument is so phony its laughable.