Watch out for AK-47s!!

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » July 21, 2004, 12:07 pm

Apparantly, some laws expire. Watch your ass!

http://awbansunset.com/

No worries with our right wing nut jobs in office, of course.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 21, 2004, 12:12 pm

I think all laws by default should have expiration dates.

Force the politicians to renew all laws from time to time to make sure they're still relevant.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 21, 2004, 12:14 pm

you just want to repeal the civil rights act.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 21, 2004, 12:15 pm

I kinda agree Adex. I mean there are some like murder, theft, and rape that need to always be crimes, but a lot of the others are products of the morality dujor, and need to be discarded every 20-30 years.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 21, 2004, 12:16 pm

Silly Kyo

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 21, 2004, 12:17 pm

I posted about this in the marriage thread. 4 presidents have written President Bush to ask him to not let this law expire, while Bush says he supports it - he hasn't asked the house to take initiative and put a bill on this on the floor. The house says when the President asks them directly - they will start this bill on the house floor.

We have found Al Qaeda handbooks, in them they say - go to america and use america's relaxed gun laws to get guns.

I support the right to bare arms, don't get me wrong - I do not however support the right for people to have uzi's, ak47's etc.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 21, 2004, 12:18 pm

But some of them deer are really mean Thess!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 21, 2004, 12:30 pm

What most people have trouble grasping is that this law did absolutely nothing except ban the manufacture of high capacity magazines. It did not even ban the sale of these magazines....just the manufacture of them in the U.S.

You could always have purchased an AK-47 replica in the U.S. Even with this "assault weapons ban" in place. The companies merely stopped making these guns with the useless features that got them classified as assault weapons.

Specifically, a rifle is considered an "assault weapon" if it can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:

Folding or telescopic stock
Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
Grenade launcher

I have yet to see any of the replicas sporting a grenade launcher, so they had to remove two of the other three options. Usually they just removed the bayonet mount and then either the pistol grip or the flash suppressor. Just depended on what you wanted as to which model you could buy.

So does someone have something specific in mind that this big ban that is set to expire prevented or did not prevent that would be fixed by continuing to disallow a pistol grip and a bayonet on a rifle?

Would you all be really that much happier if they wasted the time and money to put this back into law again just to cosmetically change some rifles? Or are you all just so stupidly blind to the liberal parties that you never bothered to read exactly what this ban did?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 21, 2004, 12:39 pm

Thess wrote:I posted about this in the marriage thread. 4 presidents have written President Bush to ask him to not let this law expire, while Bush says he supports it - he hasn't asked the house to take initiative and put a bill on this on the floor. The house says when the President asks them directly - they will start this bill on the house floor.

We have found Al Qaeda handbooks, in them they say - go to america and use america's relaxed gun laws to get guns.

I support the right to bare arms, don't get me wrong - I do not however support the right for people to have uzi's, ak47's etc.

Looking at the broader picture of all gun use in crime, it becomes clear that "assault weapons" are a minor part of the problem. Police gun seizure data from around the nation finds that "assault weapons" account for less than 2% of guns seized by the police; more typically, they account for less than 1%, according to data compiled from 24 major jurisdictions.

At first blush one might say that the lack of crime using assault weapons or high-capacity magazines is due to the ban. Wrong. Before the ban the AK and AR type rifles, two of the most common, were produced in the millions. These weapons were grandfathered in as per the provisions of the bill. Further, standard capacity (30 rounds or more) magazines designed for these weapons were mass-produced and surpluses are in the millions. There is no shortage of these “pre-ban” magazines and in many cases they can be had for little more than their “post-ban” counterparts

You have the sensationalist view of those types of guns from movies. Uzis and AK-47s that are purchased legally in the U.S. are semi-automatic. They do not fire full auto like the real thing. I could guarantee you that it would be easier for the terrorists to get ahold of much more lethal ordinance in the middle east or even at a fertilizer store than they could from legitimate firearms dealers in the U.S.

I am also not so sure that Kerry will back some of the anti-gun legislation that some of the spineless democrats have supported in the past. He is probably more pro-gun than many republicans.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 21, 2004, 12:46 pm

People should have the ABILITY to get AKs etc, but of course the requirements should be by no means easy. Extensive experiance and years of gun ownership, backround checks/profiling, extensive fees, and courses should be necessary if a civilian wishes to own an automatic weapon, that way the RIGHT is there, but they would be available to any trailer trash redneck who wants to go blow up some niggers

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » July 21, 2004, 12:47 pm

The assault weapon ban is a silly law that should be allowed to expire. AK-47s will not suddenly be legal if it does pass. An AK-47 is an assault rifle, and capable of fully automatic fire (ie. hold down the trigger and bullets keep firing). Fully automatic weapons are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. All weapons addressed by the assault weapon ban are semi-automatic. Meaning each pull of the trigger fires one bullet, like the majority of firearms available today. The assault ban is more about trying to restrict weapons that look military or scary in some other way than actual differences in capabilities.

For a good thourough discussion of the criteria used to try to classify assault weapons and their lack of rationality, see

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/rational.htm

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 21, 2004, 12:47 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Thess wrote:I posted about this in the marriage thread. 4 presidents have written President Bush to ask him to not let this law expire, while Bush says he supports it - he hasn't asked the house to take initiative and put a bill on this on the floor. The house says when the President asks them directly - they will start this bill on the house floor.

We have found Al Qaeda handbooks, in them they say - go to america and use america's relaxed gun laws to get guns.

I support the right to bare arms, don't get me wrong - I do not however support the right for people to have uzi's, ak47's etc.

Looking at the broader picture of all gun use in crime, it becomes clear that "assault weapons" are a minor part of the problem. Police gun seizure data from around the nation finds that "assault weapons" account for less than 2% of guns seized by the police; more typically, they account for less than 1%, according to data compiled from 24 major jurisdictions.

At first blush one might say that the lack of crime using assault weapons or high-capacity magazines is due to the ban. Wrong. Before the ban the AK and AR type rifles, two of the most common, were produced in the millions. These weapons were grandfathered in as per the provisions of the bill. Further, standard capacity (30 rounds or more) magazines designed for these weapons were mass-produced and surpluses are in the millions. There is no shortage of these “pre-ban” magazines and in many cases they can be had for little more than their “post-ban” counterparts

You have the sensationalist view of those types of guns from movies. Uzis and AK-47s that are purchased legally in the U.S. are semi-automatic. They do not fire full auto like the real thing. I could guarantee you that it would be easier for the terrorists to get ahold of much more lethal ordinance in the middle east or even at a fertilizer store than they could from legitimate firearms dealers in the U.S.

I am also not so sure that Kerry will back some of the anti-gun legislation that some of the spineless democrats have supported in the past. He is probably more pro-gun than many republicans.

I believe if you own a semi automatic weapon with a "corperation stamp" and some sort of other requirments you can legally make it an automatic weapon. My grandfather is a gun freak and i think he has or has thought about doing that

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 21, 2004, 1:09 pm

You cannot legally convert anything to an automatic weapon. If you have a Class 2 federal permit, then you can own an automatic weapon. that permit is given out by the BATF and there is an extensive background check that goes through the FBI. It costs a couple hundred dollars a year and they also have a surcharge per weapon. It is a felony to possess an automatic weapon without one.

You could shave the sear or other parts down on almost any semi-auto to "convert" it. It is extremely unreliable and will cause misfires and accidental discharges.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 21, 2004, 8:00 pm

Thess wrote:I posted about this in the marriage thread. 4 presidents have written President Bush to ask him to not let this law expire, while Bush says he supports it - he hasn't asked the house to take initiative and put a bill on this on the floor. The house says when the President asks them directly - they will start this bill on the house floor.

We have found Al Qaeda handbooks, in them they say - go to america and use america's relaxed gun laws to get guns.

I support the right to bare arms, don't get me wrong - I do not however support the right for people to have uzi's, ak47's etc.

I totally agree. I'm actually anti-gun period. But, I realize that is a pipe dream. I also, begrudgingly, understand the need to be allowed to have such weapondry should the need arise to defend ourselves from an enemy attack on our lands or if we should actually need to try and overthrow our government someday. I think that is why the founding fathers put that whole thing about an armed militia in the constitution. I wish it wasn't needed, but understand it's importance.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » July 21, 2004, 8:28 pm

If you need an automatic weapon, maybe hunting isn't for you.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » July 21, 2004, 9:16 pm

Niffoni wrote:If you need an automatic weapon, maybe hunting isn't for you.

If by automatic you mean fully automatic (ie machine gun) then as stated several times in the thread, this ban doesn't address that.

Also, hunting is not the only reason to own a gun.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » July 21, 2004, 9:49 pm

You're right, they're also useful for opening a stubborn can of beans!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 21, 2004, 9:52 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Folding or telescopic stock
Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
Grenade launcher

all of those criteria don't neccesarily make it an assault weapon; I'll agree. but all of those features on a firearm contribute to making that firearm more dangerous than it should be in the hands of the wrong kind of person (ie. anyone from the south) and/or make the weapon easier to conceal. the lawmakers that passed the law knew what they were doing. just because it started as and is called the "assault weapons ban" doesn't mean that's what it turned into. compromises were made and this was the result. I agree with this law totally.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 22, 2004, 2:08 am

you don't need an assult rife to hunt anything or for "protection" they should be banned. bush is just looking for redneck votes

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » July 22, 2004, 3:53 am

Its probably a US thingy that i dont get, but WHY do you guys focus on being allowed to buy firearms?

I mean, legal firearms = a LOT bigger chance of people doing spur of the moment crimes (killing cheating husband for example), a LOT easier for criminals to get guns, everyone having guns = more criminals will carry and use guns (hell, if im to get robbed, ill rather have a guy with a knife threatening me, than a guy with a pistol thats afraid i got one too).

I mean, WHERE are the threat that you need to defend yourself against? Terrorists, sorry, a 9mm gun not gonna do much good agains an airplane.
Criminals breaking into your hourse? In denmark its VERY rare that a person breaking into a house got a gun, because he does NOT feel threatened by the possibility that the houseowner got a gun too, and thereby lowering the risk of anyone getting hurt.

Ok, question asked, flame away and sick Charlton Heston on me.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 22, 2004, 8:27 am

Hesten wrote:Its probably a US thingy that i dont get, but WHY do you guys focus on being allowed to buy firearms?

I mean, legal firearms = a LOT bigger chance of people doing spur of the moment crimes (killing cheating husband for example), a LOT easier for criminals to get guns, everyone having guns = more criminals will carry and use guns (hell, if im to get robbed, ill rather have a guy with a knife threatening me, than a guy with a pistol thats afraid i got one too).

I mean, WHERE are the threat that you need to defend yourself against? Terrorists, sorry, a 9mm gun not gonna do much good agains an airplane.
Criminals breaking into your hourse? In denmark its VERY rare that a person breaking into a house got a gun, because he does NOT feel threatened by the possibility that the houseowner got a gun too, and thereby lowering the risk of anyone getting hurt.

Ok, question asked, flame away and sick Charlton Heston on me.

Becuase the Govt. wont let us have RPG's or .50 Caliber machine guns mounted on the back of our trucks, Damn middle easterners get all the fun.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » July 22, 2004, 10:35 am

If this ban expires then I will go out and buy the best assault weapon I can find that does not require a background check. Why? Because I have the right to do so. I was in the military and I happen to like guns. I don't hunt but I like target shooting and enjoyed shooting in the military.

I own an old M-14 already and it is arguably one of the best military rifles ever made. I shoot it about once a year but I plan to teach my kids how to shoot and the proper handling of a weapon. When you refuse to teach kids the dangers of guns then they will play with them. It works the same way as alcohol, I imbibed a lot before I turned 21 because it was illegal and for really no other reason. The mystique wasn't as strong after I turned 21. I don't want my kids going to a friend's house, seeing a gun and wanting to play with it. I want them to know the dangers and to run away. Not all gun owners are red-necks looking to shoot some <insert racial slur here>.

As for laws expiring...I think most laws should expire. I think taxes should as well. Taxes should have to be revoted on every ten years. Why am I being forced to pay taxes that were established by my grandparents? The constitution says that there will be no taxation without representation. I was not around to be represented when most of the taxes were passed.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 22, 2004, 11:02 am

You have a vote. You are represented.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 22, 2004, 11:59 am

Hesten wrote:Its probably a US thingy that i dont get, but WHY do you guys focus on being allowed to buy firearms?

I mean, legal firearms = a LOT bigger chance of people doing spur of the moment crimes (killing cheating husband for example), a LOT easier for criminals to get guns, everyone having guns = more criminals will carry and use guns (hell, if im to get robbed, ill rather have a guy with a knife threatening me, than a guy with a pistol thats afraid i got one too).

I mean, WHERE are the threat that you need to defend yourself against? Terrorists, sorry, a 9mm gun not gonna do much good agains an airplane.
Criminals breaking into your hourse? In denmark its VERY rare that a person breaking into a house got a gun, because he does NOT feel threatened by the possibility that the houseowner got a gun too, and thereby lowering the risk of anyone getting hurt.

Ok, question asked, flame away and sick Charlton Heston on me.

Because in the U.S. (and the rest of the world for that matter) you will never ever be able to remove every gun. It is completely impossible for any government today to remove every gun out of the country. Therefore, if you take away the law abiding people's guns, then the only people who will still have access to them are people who don't care about laws anyway.

In the U.S. it is not rare for a person to use a gun commiting a crime. Of course there are laws in place that say the same criminals are not allowed to carry a gun into these places they intend to rob....so what makes anyone think they will follow a law that says they can't own one?

In this day and age, anyone with internet access and a desire to do harm can build a zip gun, an explosive device, or worse. Banning law abiding citizen's access to defense would make things incredibly bad. These people have absolutely no regard for police or human life. If you take away the deterrent of them possibly getting shot by Joe Homeowner, you would get an awful lot of people killed by the crack addicted ass hats.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 22, 2004, 12:07 pm

the reason americans are so "i want to be able to own this gun" is because we are a buncha ignorant rednecks. best way to say it next thing were gonna have gang fights in the middle of the street with assult rifles with armor piercing bullets

go americans needing bigger better guns for their homes !

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 22, 2004, 1:56 pm

so lets say all laws have experiation dates....how the fuck is Congress going to make any progress if they have to reknew every god damn law that was ever passed? they already are fucking home for half the year making money for the re-election.

for instance today, hte recommendations of the 9/11 commission are out, and of course there is no time for Congress to really debate any of the recommendations or god forbid

i've got a great idea: lets see some leadership out of somebody in Washington extending the Congressional cycle and making some progress about shit that actually matters. oh yeah they were debating about amendments that would never pass about Gay Marriage. thanks Bush for making sure that agenda was pushed to the fore. it truly is more important than anything else facing us....

oh by the way, anybody read this thing in Women's Wall Street Journal?

http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/art ... icleid=711

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 22, 2004, 2:00 pm

Voronwë wrote:so lets say all laws have experiation dates....how the fuck is Congress going to make any progress if they have to reknew every god damn law that was ever passed?

It is working as intended!

Deward · Post by **Deward** » July 22, 2004, 2:07 pm

Voronwë wrote:so lets say all laws have experiation dates....how the fuck is Congress going to make any progress if they have to reknew every god damn law that was ever passed? they already are fucking home for half the year making money for the re-election.

for instance today, hte recommendations of the 9/11 commission are out, and of course there is no time for Congress to really debate any of the recommendations or god forbid

i've got a great idea: lets see some leadership out of somebody in Washington extending the Congressional cycle and making some progress about shit that actually matters. oh yeah they were debating about amendments that would never pass about Gay Marriage. thanks Bush for making sure that agenda was pushed to the fore. it truly is more important than anything else facing us....

It would be nice to see congress doing something worthwhile for once. Instead of spending months debating gay marriage, they could be made to work for their pensions and salaries. I don't believe the constitution ever intended Congress to be passing so many laws as it has. That should be left up to teh individual states. Obviously there are some laws that should be there but I am more talking about the tax laws that politicians will promise to expire when the work is done but never do. A good example of this is gas taxes. Most gas taxes were supposed to just be used for a temporary time period. Instead they became a huge subsidy for highway companies and their shoddy work.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 22, 2004, 2:17 pm

So the question is... Do I think these men were musicians? I'll let you decide. But I wonder, if 19 terrorists can learn to fly airplanes into buildings, couldn't 14 terrorists learn to play instruments?

Indeed!

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » July 22, 2004, 2:29 pm

Voronwë wrote:so lets say all laws have experiation dates....how the fuck is Congress going to make any progress if they have to reknew every god damn law that was ever passed? they already are fucking home for half the year making money for the re-election.

Given the general desirability of the laws they pass, the last thing I want is them spending even more time passing them. I'd rather they spend even more of the year at home (unless they are from my state, in which case I wish they would go on vacation somewhere else).

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 22, 2004, 2:40 pm

Drasta wrote:the reason americans are so "i want to be able to own this gun" is because we are a buncha ignorant rednecks. best way to say it next thing were gonna have gang fights in the middle of the street with assult rifles with armor piercing bullets go americans needing bigger better guns for their homes !

You are a moron.

Looking at the broader picture of all gun use in crime, it becomes clear that "assault weapons" are a minor part of the problem. Police gun seizure data from around the nation finds that "assault weapons" account for less than 2% of guns seized by the police; more typically, they account for less than 1%, according to data compiled from 24 major jurisdictions.

At first blush one might say that the lack of crime using assault weapons or high-capacity magazines is due to the ban. Wrong. Before the ban the AK and AR type rifles, two of the most common, were produced in the millions. These weapons were grandfathered in as per the provisions of the bill. Further, standard capacity (30 rounds or more) magazines designed for these weapons were mass-produced and surpluses are in the millions. There is no shortage of these “pre-ban” magazines and in many cases they can be had for little more than their “post-ban” counterparts

If you knew even the slightest bit about firearms, which you so obviously do not, you would know that armor piercing is not the way to go if you actually want to kill someone. You people seriously need to stop watching movies.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » July 22, 2004, 5:09 pm

Hesten wrote:Its probably a US thingy that i dont get, but WHY do you guys focus on being allowed to buy firearms?

I mean, legal firearms = a LOT bigger chance of people doing spur of the moment crimes (killing cheating husband for example), a LOT easier for criminals to get guns, everyone having guns = more criminals will carry and use guns (hell, if im to get robbed, ill rather have a guy with a knife threatening me, than a guy with a pistol thats afraid i got one too).

I mean, WHERE are the threat that you need to defend yourself against? Terrorists, sorry, a 9mm gun not gonna do much good agains an airplane.
Criminals breaking into your hourse? In denmark its VERY rare that a person breaking into a house got a gun, because he does NOT feel threatened by the possibility that the houseowner got a gun too, and thereby lowering the risk of anyone getting hurt.

Ok, question asked, flame away and sick Charlton Heston on me.

It's so we're able to defend ourselves when Canada invades.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » July 22, 2004, 6:47 pm

Rekaar. is right. You'd be screwed otherwise. Admit it... you'd never see it coming.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 22, 2004, 7:06 pm

You have no reason to fear a Canadian invasion. The logistics involved with transporting enough beer so we are not forced to drink american piss water is just too daunting.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 22, 2004, 7:14 pm

Forthe wrote:You have no reason to fear a Canadian invasion. The logistics involved with transporting enough beer so we are not forced to drink american piss water is just too daunting.

The United States is about to start pissing in your beer!

I Am Also American: Canadian drinkers will ignore Molson merger, experts say

STEVE ERWIN
Canadian Press

TORONTO (CP) - The Montreal brewer that has boasted about its Canuck heritage for years now plans to tie the knot with an American cousin, but consumers of Molson brands will largely ignore the ownership change even if they don't approve of the marriage with Coors, marketing experts said Thursday.

Despite its well-known "I Am Canadian" advertising campaign of several years ago and its more recent series of commercials that imply U.S. beers are inferior to Canada's, beer drinkers who already prefer Molson products likely won't abandon them unless they start to look and taste different.

"Do we care that much if a former Canadian company is now internationally owned?" Dan Ondrack, a merger management expert at the University of Toronto, asked rhetorically.

"If people see that Molson's is still on the shelves and it still looks the same and it tastes the same, maybe people will be largely indifferent" to who owns the company, he said.

On Thursday, Molson Inc. and Adolph Coors Co. announced a merger that will create a North American beer company with $6 billion US in annual sales and nearly 15,000 employees. The new merged company, Molson Coors Brewing, would have Canadian and American shareholders, but would be focused primarily on U.S. and international markets.

Ondrack said there's plenty of examples of companies whose histories are based in Canada and who are still often identified as Canadian despite American ownership.

For example, the popular Tim Hortons coffee and doughnut chain of more than 2,000 outlets was bought in 1995 by Wendy's International Inc., of Dublin, Ohio. But many Canadians still see Tim Hortons as their own - it's named after a late Toronto Maple Leafs hockey player and its "Roll up the rim to win" TV commercials featured Canadians rolling their 'R's to guards at the U.S. border.

The legendary Montreal Canadiens hockey club - formerly owned by Molson - was bought by American businessman George Gillett in 2001. And one of the country's best-known clothing retailers, Roots Canada, was founded by Don Green and Michael Budman - both of whom were born in Detroit.

"Consumers identify with the brand" and not the corporation, said Niraj Dawar, professor of marketing at the University of Western Ontario in London.

He added that the Molson name remains "very strong" in Canada and will likely continue to be after the merger, even if new advertising campaigns take on a less nationalistic slant as the new company tries to grow in the huge United States market as well as in the U.K and Brazil.

At a downtown Toronto bar on Thursday, several patrons who prefer Molson products shrugged off the "merger of equals" that will see the company merge operations with Colorado-based Coors.

"I don't care," Brad Brigham said while sipping a Molson Canadian draught on the patio of the Upfront Bar & Grill. "Mergers happen all the time."

Inside the bar, Peter Kerr said he'd continue to drink his favourite draught beer, Rickard's Red, which is distributed by Molson.

"I will continue to drink it," Kerr said. "If they start brewing it differently, that might make a difference."

Dawar noted that it will be difficult to tell if the brand's image is hurt after the merger since sales of Molson's flagship Canadian brand have been slipping in the last year anyhow. According to industry observers, Molson Canadian has relinquished its position as Canada's top-selling beer over the last few years to a U.S. brand, Budweiser, brewed in Canada by Labatt Brewing under licence from Anheuser-Busch of St. Louis.

"The fact is the Molson Canadian brand was in decline before the merger itself so perhaps that decline will continue given the intense competitive activity in the marketplace," Dawar said.

It's unclear whether Molson products would get any increased marketing under its merged management, although Dawar said he suspects the Molson name might get more of a push in the United States, where it's viewed as more of a premium imported beer.

Ondrack said Canadians will still see major marketing campaigns for Molson in Canada, though they may look different - with less of an emphasis on nationalism. He said it might eventually abandon some sponsorships of sporting and entertainment events, including the Molson Indy auto racing series, depending on how the American interests view the events.

Essentially, Molson could end up being run as a "hollowed-out corporation" with fewer executives and a strategy that's less concerned with growth of any brands that originated in Canada, Ondrack said. He points to Labatt's business presence in Canada as more of a media buyer promoting Blue and other beers for parent company Interbrew SA of Belgium.

"Labatt's brand name might still exist and it still appears on the product but Labatt's management side . . . has been really cut back," he says. "There are people running it, but they're running it at a much lower level."

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » July 22, 2004, 7:40 pm

Forthe wrote:You have no reason to fear a Canadian invasion. The logistics involved with transporting enough beer so we are not forced to drink american piss water is just too daunting.

Never had Canadian beer, is the difference really that huge? If so, where can I get some.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 22, 2004, 7:55 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:
Forthe wrote:You have no reason to fear a Canadian invasion. The logistics involved with transporting enough beer so we are not forced to drink american piss water is just too daunting.
Never had Canadian beer, is the difference really that huge? If so, where can I get some.

I have. I didn't think so. I don't see the big deal.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 22, 2004, 7:56 pm

Molson/Labatts are the Budweisers of Canada. They aren't good beer, just prominent ones.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 22, 2004, 9:43 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:Molson/Labatts are the Budweisers of Canada. They aren't good beer, just prominent ones.

Molsons is good, but it smells like complete ass and has a really shitty tasting aftertaste
If it wasnt for that it would be a really good beer

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 22, 2004, 10:12 pm

Canadian beer certainly isnt something to be arrogant aboot.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 23, 2004, 12:55 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Drasta wrote:the reason americans are so "i want to be able to own this gun" is because we are a buncha ignorant rednecks. best way to say it next thing were gonna have gang fights in the middle of the street with assult rifles with armor piercing bullets go americans needing bigger better guns for their homes !

You are a moron.

Looking at the broader picture of all gun use in crime, it becomes clear that "assault weapons" are a minor part of the problem. Police gun seizure data from around the nation finds that "assault weapons" account for less than 2% of guns seized by the police; more typically, they account for less than 1%, according to data compiled from 24 major jurisdictions.

At first blush one might say that the lack of crime using assault weapons or high-capacity magazines is due to the ban. Wrong. Before the ban the AK and AR type rifles, two of the most common, were produced in the millions. These weapons were grandfathered in as per the provisions of the bill. Further, standard capacity (30 rounds or more) magazines designed for these weapons were mass-produced and surpluses are in the millions. There is no shortage of these “pre-ban” magazines and in many cases they can be had for little more than their “post-ban” counterparts
If you knew even the slightest bit about firearms, which you so obviously do not, you would know that armor piercing is not the way to go if you actually want to kill someone. You people seriously need to stop watching movies.

umm what was that supposed to tell me? you can slant facts to show whatever you want

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » July 23, 2004, 5:04 am

Hehe, dont even drink beer myself, but first time i was in the US, me and some classmates bought some beer and booze (ok, i couldnt, was only 20 at the time, way to go when i can get alcohol from when im 15 at home

), and they decided to try some Budweiser.
We only got to open the first can and everyone could smell it, that was enough, noone would even consider drinking it, ended up throwing it all out.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 23, 2004, 5:22 am

Hesten wrote: We only got to open the first can and everyone could smell it, that was enough, noone would even consider drinking it, ended up throwing it all out.

party foul!

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 23, 2004, 5:29 pm

hence why beer is gross

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 23, 2004, 10:02 pm

there are some decent brewries in the states. but their most popular brands tend to taste like rancid mule urine.

it's not really fair to compare labbat's and molson to say "charles reinnot's ultra special $17 a bottle select stock ale," but even the cheapest most terrible mainstream canadian brands taste like drinking a liquid orgasm compared to something like coors or budweiser.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 23, 2004, 10:44 pm

Thess wrote:We have found Al Qaeda handbooks, in them they say - go to america and use america's relaxed gun laws to get guns.

I call bullshit on this, PROVE IT