dumbass bush

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 8, 2003, 7:35 pm

now it seems bush is trying ot ban the right to own assult rifles...the right to bear arms is pretty much the ONLY thing good about conservatives and one of the only freedoms they promote...and now he is trying to limit that, of all people

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » May 8, 2003, 7:45 pm

Seriously, what logical reason is their for needing an assault rifle? Other than showing off or shooting people?

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » May 8, 2003, 7:55 pm

I need a bazooka.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 8, 2003, 8:07 pm

people use them for sport, competitions etc you can enter with them, and most criminals that have assult rifles do not obtain them legally, overall there great guns
guns dont kill people, people kill people

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 8, 2003, 8:15 pm

Xzion wrote:people use them for sport, competitions etc you can enter with them, and most criminals that have assult rifles do not obtain them legally, overall there great guns
guns dont kill people, people kill people

Malvo used one right?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 8, 2003, 8:15 pm

Xzion wrote:people use them for sport, competitions etc you can enter with them, and most criminals that have assult rifles do not obtain them legally, overall there great guns
guns dont kill people, people kill people

Malvo used one right?

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » May 8, 2003, 8:20 pm

If you need an assault rifle to kill a deer, maybe it's time to get a new hobby.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » May 8, 2003, 8:25 pm

I think it should be legal to own Anthrax too...for my petri dish collection. I won't let it out. I promise.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 8, 2003, 8:32 pm

BIRD!!!!!naw, but people use them in competitions etc, not that big of a deal, but just shouldnt be banned imho...

Alfan · Post by **Alfan** » May 8, 2003, 9:42 pm

People that commit murder with assault weapons might not have obtained them legally, but you can sure as hell bet someone did. H&K or whoever manufactures those things doesn't sell arms directly to the black market (sorry, no link to back this up)--but they end up there anyway.

Really, what the hell is the point of an m4 as a recreational gun? Unloading a thirty round clip into a piece of plywood leaned up against your trailer—whether you think of it as a competition or not—is helping the enemy (those people you vaguely described as the true instruments of killing).

-Alfan

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » May 8, 2003, 9:56 pm

imo, if firing a weapon isn't apart of your job description and you can go to the store to get your food, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » May 8, 2003, 10:22 pm

Toshira wrote:I think it should be legal to own Anthrax too...for my petri dish collection. I won't let it out. I promise.

If anthrax is outlawed, only outlaws will have anthrax.

Think about it. It starts to make sense if you say it often enough.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » May 8, 2003, 10:25 pm

I don't want to own it... but I'd like to rent an Aircraft Carrier for 2 or 3 days. Watch those fuckin Canadians run for cover...

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » May 8, 2003, 10:41 pm

The number of people killed with assault rifles is so ridiculously small.....

The .38 special is the most widely used gun in violent crime. Friggin assault rifles don't even hit the map.

I'm not sure what they are trying to achieve here, but public safety ain't it.

Mumblefug · Post by **Mumblefug** » May 8, 2003, 11:53 pm

I just don't see how the few valid uses of guns (at best hobbies) justify making them available to the general public. If I were a gun enthusiast, but knew that someone stealing my 'collection' could use it to kill people, I'd like to think I'd be more open minded about people suggesting it be banned.
In a better world this wouldn't be an issue at all, anyone could carry a gun. But it's a huge issue right now because so many people will use said gun to shoot you in the spleen and steal your bling bling.
There will be crime either way. You can't outlaw knives and clubs. But you sure have a better chance of surviving a knifing or a clubbing than you do from getting shot.
I am not hardcore for abolishing guns (I think there are far more important issues to deal with first like feeding the homeless), but when you tally the pros and cons, it does seem the edge goes to making them illegal.

Mumble

sarpranous · Post by **sarpranous** » May 9, 2003, 12:01 am

Some people are into guns and want a gun collection. Sure they can kill people. But so can rocks and people have rock collections, or shall we make having rock collecitons illegal because you can smash some dudes skull in with a rock.

Salis · Post by **Salis** » May 9, 2003, 12:18 am

Guns are weapons designed to kill people/animals. As far as I know, no one specifically designed rocks, to kill people or otherwise. Things that are designed as weapons should be controlled as in most cases they have little other functional value. I think America would do itself a great service by reducing/elimintaing gun culture, it's certainly a cause of OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of violence and definitely contributes to the overall fear of violence people feel. Seems to me it's pretty logical that the cost is OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS higher than the benefits, especially having lived in 'gun-free' nations.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 9, 2003, 12:19 am

Fallanthas wrote:The number of people killed with assault rifles is so ridiculously small.....

The .38 special is the most widely used gun in violent crime. Friggin assault rifles don't even hit the map.

what decade do you live in?

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » May 9, 2003, 12:57 am

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

my guess, late 90s, about 5 years ago. The site referenced above does not show that the .38 is the most widely used though. It does show that handguns are more widely used than assault rifles in homicides and robberies though.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » May 9, 2003, 2:24 am

I don't know... maybe I don't get it because I'm not an American.

I don't see the reason for a private individual to own/posess an assault weapon. I don't buy into the "self-protection" argument for most private citizens to own handguns. Especially in a household with young kids who may not understand exactly what they are dealing with.

I realize that a lot of enthusiasts love to target shoot (hey its an absolute blast!) but if thats what you want, what is wrong with a hunting rifle which is far more likely to have a higher degree of accuracy than something that pops off rounds before you can aim?

I think the gun control laws in Canada have gone far enough (and I'm not talking about Alan Rockhead's precious billion dollar registry, just the legislation for buying, owning, storing and transporting firearms and ammunition) and that the US could benefit to follow that lead, but that is the prerogative of the voters and governments of the US.

Its not like the Russians are gonna invade like in Red Dawn...

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » May 9, 2003, 4:20 am

Fallanthas wrote:The number of people killed with assault rifles is so ridiculously small.....

The .38 special is the most widely used gun in violent crime. Friggin assault rifles don't even hit the map.

I'm not sure what they are trying to achieve here, but public safety ain't it.

Very true however the times when rifles are used the results are significantly more terrifying. Those two monga's in California about 3 years ago with body armor. The guy in the tower in Texas, and more recently the sniper in the Maryland area. I think only the bank job in California had an assault rifle being used.

BAN GUNS!1!1! or make people register all weapons.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » May 9, 2003, 5:29 am

Right to bear arms is one conservative staple I buy into. Frankly, assault class weapons WILL find their way into determined/resourceful criminals hands wether people can obtain them legally or not. There are legitimate gun collectors or dumb rednecks who just like blasting a hundred rounds at a target in their back 40. Assault weapons lack concealability of any kind and that pretty much restricts their use in criminal activities. The ownership of such weapons should be strictly regulated, but it should not be flat out forbidden.

As for where our obsession with guns came from, the Right to Bear Arms essentially exists because early colonials did not want to be vulnerable to oppression from their own government with the idea that an armed populace is harder to control via tyranical means. This idea has been warped over the years, like all aspects of our constitution, by political extremists on both ends. Wether you agree with it or not in principle, it is pretty much a given that suppression of the US populace by the use of force, foriegn or domestic, would be a difficult excercise as long as current laws remain in place.

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » May 9, 2003, 5:39 am

guns dont kill people, people kill people

Well, technically, bullets kill people...

BUT I THINK THE GUN HELPS, DON'T YOU?

I will never, ever, understand the american loveaffair with weapons designed to kill and maim.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 9, 2003, 7:25 am

if we take away totally the right to bear arms, or asult rifles for a start, it will be as easy to obtain a gun in the US as it is to obtain a quarter bag of pot, the people who would want to use guns in a negative way, WILL have them, and everyone else will not...this is comming from someone who is overall very anti-rightwing or conservative

and if you want to see an example, reaserch the crime rate in australia after they took away the right to bear arms totally...

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 9, 2003, 7:27 am

Yeah here in the UK bank robbers just drop a load of bullets on the counter and tell the bank employees to hand over the cash or they'll push the bullets into their heads for them!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » May 9, 2003, 9:19 am

Crimes with "assault weapons" are much much lower than with a handgun. The perception of them being a larger problem than they really are is perpetrated by media sensationalizing the crimes that are comitted with them. First of all, they are not fucking "assault weapons". They are semi-automatic replicas of assault weapons. I don't think the Navy SEAL team is going to walk into Wal-Mart and order up 6 AR-15's and head off to take out some terrorist cell. The media will do anything to sell their story. Usually this involves the liberal use of the word "assault weapon" and "machine gun". Someone should smack the author or newscaster every time they use one of these words when it is false.

If I wanted to ban weapons, it would be the cheap piece of shit 9mm's that are all over the damn place now. Most of the wanna-be gangsters out there are packing pieces of shit like TEC-9 and Star 9mm handguns. It is then the respectable companies like Colt and S&W that end up taking all the heat, when it is the companies putting out cheap pieces of shit and inundating the streets with them that are more at fault.

Personally, I would rather see more strict enforcement of the EXISTING laws than to come up with more legislation. Start frying the fuckers that are killing people and open up the prisons for the "less violent" felons. You start frying them for murder and all of a sudden the rates will go down.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 9, 2003, 10:15 am

You can't just ban weapons outright in the US. You have to start working on the gun culture, and the glorification of guns that is happening. The attitude towards guns is so different from Norway to US it is frightening.

Once that is done, you can start regulating guns more. By doing that, you can easier control guns. If you get caught with a gun, you go to jail for a long time.

Norway has possibly close to as many guns as USA has (proportional wise with how many citizens) or more, and most criminals don't even use them. Cops are not armed. Why? Because the attitude towards guns in Norway is that they are used for hunting only.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 9, 2003, 11:05 am

Um, ok....you REALLY think Bush is the first to try to do this? Guess you just started keeping up with the news.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 9, 2003, 11:16 am

In the movie "Red Dawn", the registered gun owners were the first people rounded up and killed.

I just thought that was ironic in a cool sorta way.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 9, 2003, 11:56 am

Personally, I would rather see more strict enforcement of the EXISTING laws than to come up with more legislation. Start frying the fuckers that are killing people and open up the prisons for the "less violent" felons. You start frying them for murder and all of a sudden the rates will go down.

Has capital punishment been shown to be an effective deterrant?

One thing they could do is make the punishment for being in posession of an unregistered weapon outrageous.

Some shit like a mandantory 10 year sentence for being in posession of an unregistered weapon... and life in prison when using an unregistered handgun in the commission of a crime.

Don't make the ciminals afraid to use a gun, make them afraid of even having one.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 9, 2003, 12:35 pm

Has capital punishment been shown to be an effective deterrant?

But of course!
In the UK we have the death penalty for High Treason and it's been AGES since we hanged anyone for that

(note that little tidbiut next time someone tries to tell you the UK doesn't have the death penalty. We do, just not for trivial shit like murder. Don't even think about messin with the queen tho)

Kaelye · Post by **Kaelye** » May 9, 2003, 1:54 pm

Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:Well, technically, bullets kill people...

BUT I THINK THE GUN HELPS, DON'T YOU?

I will never, ever, understand the american loveaffair with weapons designed to kill and maim.

If you want to get technical it's not the bullet that kills you, it's your body ceasing to function after the force of the bullet traveling through vital parts of your body and the shockwave that it produces destroys your tissues. Does that mean we to ban bodies from shutting down?

A firearm is a tool as is a hammer. If a tool is misused, the person misusing them item is to be blamed not the tool. You just limit the rest of us who are responsible.

I do think that having multiple assault rifles is going a bit over the edge. However no reason to make firearms collectors suffer. These weapons are fun to shoot, try it with an open mind and you might be surprised.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » May 9, 2003, 2:09 pm

I know this is pointless to argue with, because arguing ANY point on this board is fucking pointless, but here goes. Assault rifles may count for a small amount of violent crimes, but seriously, why have them at all. To enter a competition? Pick a different gun! To defend yourself from the monarchy? I can agree with a persons right to own a gun in self-defense, but I don't like the American view that it should be applied to liberally. Restrictions on something like a gun is a good thing IMO.

And of course handguns blow something like an assault rifle out of the water in terms of more crimes committed.. ever try to conceal a rifle in your pants?

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » May 9, 2003, 2:19 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:
Has capital punishment been shown to be an effective deterrant?
But of course!
In the UK we have the death penalty for High Treason and it's been AGES since we hanged anyone for that

(note that little tidbiut next time someone tries to tell you the UK doesn't have the death penalty. We do, just not for trivial shit like murder. Don't even think about messin with the queen tho)

Nuh Uh. You guys have a law in:
York

Excluding Sundays, it is perfectly legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow.

So on Sundays, you can kill somone for being a Scotsman. (Was this law ever repealed yet? The site I got this from doesn't say.)

Kaelye · Post by **Kaelye** » May 9, 2003, 2:40 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:I know this is pointless to argue with, because arguing ANY point on this board is fucking pointless...

/agree I feel like I'm watching an elementary school-yard fight break out everytime I enter one of these threads.

Assault rifles may count for a small amount of violent crimes, but seriously, why have them at all. To enter a competition? Pick a different gun! To defend yourself from the monarchy? I can agree with a persons right to own a gun in self-defense, but I don't like the American view that it should be applied to liberally. Restrictions on something like a gun is a good thing IMO.

And of course handguns blow something like an assault rifle out of the water in terms of more crimes committed.. ever try to conceal a rifle in your pants?

Some people like assualt rifles. I think it's funny when you see NRA spokesman using M-14s to down ducks. It takes the sportsmanship out of it I think and is silly. But they like using them. As long as they aren't killing people with them, I don't care if they want to be silly like that. There are restrictions on guns, go out and try to buy one. However most criminals don't go to a gun shop to buy guns. They go to a black marketer or a gang member to get them. So why restrict responsible gun owners more and more? Legislation needs to target the criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

Concealing a rifle down your pants promotes shrinkage...gun metal is cold! ><

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » May 9, 2003, 3:24 pm

As has been mentioned already, there is a lot of confusion on what is actually looking at being restricted/banned. Automatic weapons, meaning weapons that continue to fire when you hold down the trigger are tightly regulated and have been since the mid 30's. The weapons in question are all semi-automatic versions of military weapons. That means they shoot one bullet whenever you pull the trigger, just like a wide range of rifles/pistols etc that are available that are not considered "assault weapons". Could they potentially be converted to a fully automatic weapon? Yes, with the right tools and knowledge. Could non-assault weapons be converted to fully automatic weapons? Again, yes with the right tools and knowledge. In both case the act of converting the weapon and the possession of the converted weapon would be illegal. The main reason the so called "assault weapons" are being singled out is not because of any difference in capability, but basically because they look military. Which is a pretty silly reason to base a ban off of.

For a decent read about the subject check out the following article.

http://reason.com/9511/GUNSfeat.shtml

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 9, 2003, 7:11 pm

at the moment you can buy a variety of assult rifles or other automatic weapons at gun shows, or anywhere, yet they are turned on "semi automatic"... in order for you to legally own an automatic weapon you need a "corperation stamp" which is very difficult to get
i know many presedents have done this in the past, and i doubt anyone shoots ducks with a fully automatic ak47!, yet there is no reason in my mind to totally ban them, if people enjoy owning the automatic weapons simply for a peace of mind, or for fun at the shooting range i dont think that should be taken away, if someone wants to whack you bad enough, there gonna do it one way or another despite any gun control law or banning of firearms altogeather,
and cmon, if your going to hunt any animal other then a dangerous 30 foot croc or siberan tiger with a machette or large knife, your already a pussy! bow or handgun or anything

Mumblefug · Post by **Mumblefug** » May 9, 2003, 8:25 pm

Kaelye wrote: However most criminals don't go to a gun shop to buy guns. They go to a black marketer or a gang member to get them. So why restrict responsible gun owners more and more? Legislation needs to target the criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

Concealing a rifle down your pants promotes shrinkage...gun metal is cold! ><

And where, perchance do you think the black marketeers and gang members get the guns? From the houses of the upstanding gun owners that they rob. It's just a vicious cycle. Yeah people SHOULD be able to own guns if they want to. But as it stands now, this hobby is killing people in a roundabout way.

Mumble

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » May 9, 2003, 9:56 pm

And where, perchance do you think the black marketeers and gang members get the guns? From the houses of the upstanding gun owners that they rob.

Don't buy a gun if you can't accept that it may be stolen or turned on you. Everyone's heard that statistic that you're x% more likely to be killed by a gun (usually your gun) if you own one.

I think the whole debate comes down to a controlling fear. Everyone would agree even the most responsible weapons enthusiast should not be able to legally own something a little more exotic like a shoulder fire anti-aircraft rocket launcher or a cobra chopper or something, just for fun. Everyone would be pretty freaked out if someone could own those legally. But where can you draw the line?

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » May 10, 2003, 6:57 am

Gun control is a good enough idea if you can exercise it far enough up the chain to inhibit criminal access to them. There is considerable doubt that merely requiring licensing of law-abising people has any effect on criminal access though. To be possibly effective you would have to basicly prohibit manufacture and sale to any group besides official military and police organisations, plus endure years of hassle as you slowly drained the existing supply of guns away, all the while enduring rabid political attacks. Yeah, that'll happen. That still wouldnt prevent firearms being smuggled into country from elsewhere, but it would make them considerably rarer in criminal hands, since guns have to be manufactured which is harder than just growing some plants somewhere private, and theyre harder to smuggle due to metal content (easier detection with xray equipment etc) and their size/weight. You can swallow a dozen condoms of cocaine and enter the country and show a tidy profit, but its somewhat harder to swallow a dozen condoms of .38 special...

So I think meaningful gun control would take a lot more guts and patience than any politician is likely to have or could survive, either politically or physically. Pity.

An interesting read on gun control stuff- http://www.thisistrue.com/guns2.html
Also read the link in there to http://www.thisistrue.com/guns.html

*Hugs*
Varia

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » May 10, 2003, 8:12 am

I don't like guns. They should be illegal for this reason alone.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » May 10, 2003, 10:03 am

Xyun wrote:I don't like guns. They should be illegal for this reason alone.

This post captures the entire philosophical essence of the anti-gun crowd's message.

Mumblefug · Post by **Mumblefug** » May 10, 2003, 12:27 pm

No, I think the real message is "I don't like being shot BECAUSE YOU like guns".

Mumble

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 10, 2003, 12:51 pm

Mumblefug wrote:No, I think the real message is "I don't like being shot BECAUSE YOU like guns".

Mumble

I have an equally silly message, "I dont like being run over BECAUSE YOU like to drive"

grumble

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » May 10, 2003, 2:51 pm

When you find a transportational use for an assault rifle, you may try that line again.

Also, try building a deck with a gun. Then you can tell me it's a 'tool'. When Black & Decker pitches handguns on late night TV as "perfect for those unprejudiced rearranging of internal organs around the house", then you can call it a 'tool'.

To be perfectly honest, I'm kinda against gun control myself. I just think there are bigger issues right now that need to be adressed... go for the causes of shooting deaths, not the symptoms, if you will. But frothing extremests on both sides of the issue sure like to make themselves look clueless.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 10, 2003, 3:02 pm

Niffoni wrote:When you find a transportational use for an assault rifle, you may try that line again.

Also, try building a deck with a gun. Then you can tell me it's a 'tool'. When Black & Decker pitches handguns on late night TV as "perfect for those unprejudiced rearranging of internal organs around the house", then you can call it a 'tool'.

To be perfectly honest, I'm kinda against gun control myself. I just think there are bigger issues right now that need to be adressed... go for the causes of shooting deaths, not the symptoms, if you will. But frothing extremests on both sides of the issue sure like to make themselves look clueless.

*swish*

the sound of something going right over your head.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » May 10, 2003, 3:04 pm

Niffoni wrote:When you find a transportational use for an assault rifle, you may try that line again.

Also, try building a deck with a gun. Then you can tell me it's a 'tool'. When Black & Decker pitches handguns on late night TV as "perfect for those unprejudiced rearranging of internal organs around the house", then you can call it a 'tool'.

To be perfectly honest, I'm kinda against gun control myself. I just think there are bigger issues right now that need to be adressed... go for the causes of shooting deaths, not the symptoms, if you will. But frothing extremests on both sides of the issue sure like to make themselves look clueless.

Hey buddy, can you spare a Diet Pepsi? Frothing leaves my throat dry...

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » May 10, 2003, 3:12 pm

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, period. Assault weapons are used in so few crimes and murders it is rediculous, sure they garner attention, but day in day out, it is not an assault rifle that is the weapon of choice.

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.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too people. Don't bitch about Ashcroft taking away your rights, then applaud when a right you may not persoanlly agree with is taken away. The right to bear arms had NOTHING to do with hunting, it had to do with keeping our government honest.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

The assault weapons ban is window dressing, and the liberals who normally love to point out when Bush is talking out his ass are the ones buying this hook line and sinker. The ban will not effect violent crime stats, it will not make the country safer, it will not make a shits worth of difference. Simple fact is, the only people that will sleep better at night are the ones in power.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 10, 2003, 4:26 pm

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.

The right to bear arms had NOTHING to do with hunting, it had to do with keeping our government honest.

I laugh every time I read that crap.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 10, 2003, 4:42 pm

i for one hate guns, they should have never been invented and war should be faught in a more fair basis with mideval weapons...if it was up to me...yet guns do exsist and they are a large part of this world, and until we live in a perfict society with out criminals and means for self defense guns in the hands of rightious civilians must be a freedom we can enjoy