The Clinton Ban could end next week... - Page 4

**DudeMan** · 03-02-2004, 06:11 PM

actually you know what i dont really care worth a damn..

you americans can own all the guns you want and kill all the people you want . as long as you dont kill a British torist i dont care. just keep your rambo idealisation out of my country..

its a sad sad day for all mature hard working americans who have to put up with the wanna be rambos who are compensating for other things that may be a little small maybe.... lol

yeah justify it all you want but an m16 is not an instrument for home care nor is it a viable weapon for huinting. so it is not needed in the home. i thank god i dont live in a society that is willing to allow the leagle ownership of an item refined for killing the most amount of people fast.

this bill is only being passed because some GI jo wannabe is watching the war on TV and wants to kill sadam the local deer.

fr1j0l3 · 03-02-2004, 06:52 PM

Quote:

this bill is only being passed because some GI jo wannabe is watching the war on TV and wants to kill sadam the local deer.

hehehe... the bill that passed, KEEPS the Ban in place dude...

lol.. damn limies

RYN · 03-02-2004, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geisha

Sorry to double post but I want to comment on this... If I agree to a steak-knife culture, does that mean I shouldn't complain if someone stabs my husband to death with a knife? How about only licensed baseball players carrying baseball bats, because those can be used as weapons too? I don't know, maybe I'm making bad analogies here.

I can't see that agreeing to legalize proper usage (gun ranges, legal hunting, display pieces) is agreeing to accept or expect improper usage (harming another person). Did I misunderstand you somewhere, jex?

I think education is more important and ultimately more effective than a ban.

I find it absolutley hilarious that you would compare an assault weapon with a baseball bat...absolutley hilarious. And still you want to be taken seriously? Sorry sunshine.

**DudeMan** · 03-02-2004, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fr1j0l3

hehehe... the bill that passed, KEEPS the Ban in place dude...

lol.. damn limies

i could have you for racism there. warning.. but i wont. because you are a yank

anyway... my point stands its still stupid but i dont care... you can kill each other all you wanty just dont kill a brit and i wont have to kill you. speaking for the rest of the uk there..

oh and giesha/... i didnt notice that... yeah compare a baseball bat to an m16... you can got to a rifle rangew with the existing rifles to practise you can hunt with a remington.... and for god sake do not tell me you need an automatic weapon to go hunting because damn woman are you mad.

MikoLovesYou · 03-02-2004, 09:47 PM

Please don't speak for the UK or for America. I take offense to it, as I don't see things on a country-to-country basis....I recognize the fact that we are all humans and that we're in this ****hole together. Country rivalries are idiotic at best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudeman

i could have you for racism there. warning.. but i wont. because you are a yank

Since when are the Brits a race?

**CingularDuality** · 03-02-2004, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RYN

I find it absolutley hilarious that you would compare an assault weapon with a baseball bat...absolutley hilarious. And still you want to be taken seriously? Sorry sunshine.

OK, smart guy... Tell me which killed more people in the United States the year before a national assault weapons ban took effect, baseball bats or "assault weapons"?

Geisha- I don't think the Brady Bill was written specifically to be ineffective. I think it was written by ignorant people that honestly did not know that they were banning weapons that looked scary while ignoring weapons that had the same or more powerful capabilities. They were looking to fulfill an emotional response, but they were hoping that it was a move towards stronger gun control.

Jex- Canadians do NOT own more legal guns per capita than the USA. I don't know where you're getting your information, but I believe it's incorrect.

Miko- You keep asking why we should legalize assault weapons. That's the wrong question to ask. On any issue. The question should be: Why should we make something illegal? If there's not a good reason to pass a law, then it shouldn't be passed. Our nation was founded on freedom and I'd like to keep it, thank you very much. I will tell you why the Brady Bill is a bad law, though. The law bans weapons based ENTIRELY on how they LOOK. It doesn't affect more powerful weapons and it doesn't even restrict machine guns. Those are still legal (with a $200 ATFE stamp).

And to everyone- Although the Democrats successfully attached the "gun show loophole" amendment and the "renewing the Brady Bill" amendment to the Senate bill that was going to protect gun manufacturers from being sued by gun victims, the Senate later voted against passing the bill. So, as of right now, the "assault weapons" ban is due to expire later this year. Bummer for the gun companies, but individual rights are more important. Times like this, I'm glad that I'm a life member of the NRA.

**CingularDuality** · 03-02-2004, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikoLovesYou

Please don't speak for the UK or for America. I take offense to it, as I don't see things on a country-to-country basis....I recognize the fact that we are all humans and that we're in this ****hole together. Country rivalries are idiotic at best.

Hmmm.... While I agree with you in sentiment with regards to Dudeman's comments, I totally despise the idea of a one world government. There are just too many cultures and moral systems to try to come up with one that fits everyone.

Quote:

Since when are the Brits a race?

Excellent question.

fr1j0l3 · 03-02-2004, 10:31 PM

Quote:

And to everyone- Although the Democrats successfully attached the "gun show loophole" amendment and the "renewing the Brady Bill" amendment to the Senate bill that was going to protect gun manufacturers from being sued by gun victims, the Senate later voted against passing the bill. So, as of right now, the "assault weapons" ban is due to expire later this year. Bummer for the gun companies, but individual rights are more important. Times like this, I'm glad that I'm a life member of the NRA.

Kinda funny how that worked out.... one side attached the AW ban to it, the other side attached the gun manufacturer no-responsibility clause, and in the end, the whole thing bombed....

dudeman- i was pullin yer chain man... (it's a yankee thing to do

)

ok.. the anology of baseball bats to guns was not well placed. what about my analogy to cars? (and the registration, etc involved with operating one safely)

Lets get a progressive discussion goin...

**CingularDuality** · 03-02-2004, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fr1j0l3

Kinda funny how that worked out.... one side attached the AW ban to it, the other side attached the gun manufacturer no-responsibility clause, and in the end, the whole thing bombed....

Actually, the bill that was voted on was the one that protects manufacturers from being sued by the victims of criminals. The AW ban renewal and gun show loophole amendments were added to it earlier today.

**Wolfie** · 03-03-2004, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikoLovesYou

Maybe you've never posted in this forum before, so I'll give you a break this time. Make sure you read the rules, however, as PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. And that was pretty harsh for someone who I've never even talked to before.

How was that a personal attack?

**Wolfie** · 03-03-2004, 12:09 AM

My thoughts on gun bans....

Nothing more than showy legislation introduced by bleeding heart liberals that are trying to rouse up the population for votes.

Most gun laws are ineffective or not carried out anyways.

Big event in the news about some crazy with a weapon, politicians rush to the microphones telling everyone about how guns are bad and how they are going to introduce gun law XYZ which is similar to gun law ABC which isn't been enforced.

What are gun laws suppose to do (according to the politicians)? Remove guns from criminals

Who follows these gun laws? Law abiding citizens.

Do criminals care about these laws? Nope, if they want an assault rifle, then they can easily obtain one outside of the law which they did before the bans where in place to begin with.

If this cycle keeps up, eventually rifles and shotguns will be banned, then handguns. And then what happens? Law abiding citizens don't have a gun for home protection while criminals use guns during their crimes.

A bit of history...

The Wild West was not really wild. In fact, with the exception of crimes in the saloons (mixing alcohol with guns is always bad), crime was really low in that area. Why? Not because of gun laws, not because of a huge police/marshal force....it was because most citizens owned guns and knew how to use them.

Those are some of my random thoughts

Wolfie

*sleeps soundly knowing that any criminals that bust into his home will have to face an enraged homeowner with a fully loaded shotgun*

**Wolfie** · 03-03-2004, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Miko- You keep asking why we should legalize assault weapons. That's the wrong question to ask. On any issue. The question should be: Why should we make something illegal? If there's not a good reason to pass a law, then it shouldn't be passed. Our nation was founded on freedom and I'd like to keep it, thank you very much. I will tell you why the Brady Bill is a bad law, though. The law bans weapons based ENTIRELY on how they LOOK. It doesn't affect more powerful weapons and it doesn't even restrict machine guns. Those are still legal (with a $200 ATFE stamp).

I think Dave brought up an excellent point. It shouldn't be people justifying why they should be allowed assault weapons to own (as this implies that assault weapons are evil in nature and all it really is is a mechanical device that utilizes a chemical reaction) but why they should be banned....

Easier to kill people? Please!

Any sociopath can kill people with anything nowadays. Hell, if I wanted to, I could take my car to a crowded, open area and run over people left and right. Should we make cars illegal because of that?

AQ showed us how lethel planes can be. Should they be made illegal?

Hell, I got a degree in ME with enough knowledge in chemistry and electrical to jerry rig a bomb if I want to. Should we make bomb making components illegal too (which would be amusing because common day electronic devices can be used as a trigger device)?

Geisha · 03-03-2004, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

Moderated use of many drugs has found to have no long-term health effects on humans. Overuse is the key word, as drinking too much water can cause you to OD and die.

That said: smoking, drinking, eating saltly/fatty foods and a whole score of other activities are not only legal, but kill many times the amount of people than recreational drug use does.

That's certainly true. And I don't really have a problem with legalizing the minor/moderate drugs as long as I'm still protected from second-hand smoke. I said "health-destroying" thinking mainly of permanent brain damage and addictions that cause nasty withdrawal systems. Several of the illegal drugs addict with one dose even when used by hospital staff to treat ailments; morphine & steroids tend to have strict dose reduction regimens after their use.

Ryn: Dead is dead - whether you're smothered with a pillow, perforated by an assault rifle, or beat to death with a frozen leg of lamb. Do I consider a pillow a dangerous weapon? Not in the normal course of events, no. Can it be used to kill someone? Yes. Should I consider an unloaded assault rifle locked in a gun case a dangerous weapon? Possibly, but I doubt I would. Should I consider an assault rifle on the streets dangerous to me? Only if it's not being held by an appropriate person in uniform. I may have misunderstood (please forgive me if I did jex) - I thought jex was saying that if a weapon is legal you have to expect illegal actions perpetrated with that weapon and have no right to complain as a victim or on the victim's behalf. I find that harsh since just about anything can be used as a weapon.

fr1j0l3: I like your car analogy (minus my experience with getting a driver's license). Gun registration and/or licensing makes sense to me and doesn't seem to be infringing on any basic rights. We have the right to bear arms, but I don't remember it anywhere stating the right to hide the fact that we own them.

Why would you need to hide it if you're using it for legal purposes?

Thanks for the background on the Brady Bill, Cing!

**Wolfie** · 03-03-2004, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RYN

Why the f--k would I want an assault weapon in my house if I live in a first world country?
If you think you need 30 rds of 5.56mm at your disposal to knock down a deer...then god dammit you should not be in posession of one.

If you think you can hunt ducks and geese, or small game with an assault weapon then your an idiot.

Target practice? With an assault weapon? Why? I target practice with an assault weapon, well, we call it small arms range qualification, because it will hopefully help me kill someone who is shooting at me in a theater of war.

Why does Bo and Duke Luke need an assault weapon if they are not police officers, army, navy, airforce or anything else besides civilians who think it's cool to stand in front of their mirrors strapped in bandoliers when no one else is around?

This does not pertain to pistols. God knows there are some places in North America where you need one to stay alive, in fact, I wish I had a pistol. But an assault weapon? Comon.

I guess what I am trying to say is "The only persons that need an assault weapon, are individuals directly involve with law enforcement." And that means in the course of their duty. Same goes for the armed forces...in the course of their duty...meaning when they are at work..or in a theater of war...not shopping for groceries.

Why do some people think it's a bad thing if any given government wants to ban assault weapons? Why? They have one sole purpose. If you think a gun company makes an assault weapon so you can shoot tin cans in your back yard...your an idiot.

Why should I have a practical reason for owning an assault weapon? Maybe I just want to own one. Is that a crime in itself?

**USN_Squid** · 03-03-2004, 04:19 AM

I'm with Cing on this one, we have laws in place that prevent felons from obtaining firearms legally Let's find a good way to stop the illegal purchases rather than incrementally banning all firearms. This AW ban is exactly that and was admitted to by the proponents of the ban. A little at a time and soon enough we're right there with the UK and Australia where home invasions have gone through the roof (no pun intended) since their gun ban.

Some real facts for you: taken from here

Fact: In 1994, you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon”.(62) This was before the Federal assault weapons ban.

So let's outlaw beatings...oh wait they already are!

Fact: “Assault weapons” were used in less than 2% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime (63) before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban.

Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the Federal and California assault weapons confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides. (64)

Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:
For California:
• Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved
an "assault weapon".
• San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were "assault weapons".
• San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were "assault
weapons".
For the rest of the nation:
• Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were "assault weapons".
• Just over 2% of criminals that used guns used “assault weapons”.
• Only 1% of police officers murdered were killed using “assault weapons”.

Fact: Only 1.4% of weapons recovered are of the models covered under Clinton’s 1994 assault weapons ban were used in crimes.(65)

Fact: Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen.

Fact: Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition(a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. (170) To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.(171)

62 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994
63 Gary Kleck, “Targeting Guns”, 1997, compilation of 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980-1994
64 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1993
65 From statewide recovery report from Connecticut (1988-1993) and Pennsylvania (1989-1994).
170 Gallant , Hills, Kopel, “Fear in Britain”, Independence Institute, July 18, 2000
171 Daily Telegraph, 1996

03-02-2004, 06:11 PM	#46 (permalink)
DudeMan Join Date: May 2003 Location: london England Age: 22 Posts: 3,258	Re: The Clinton Ban could end next week... actually you know what i dont really care worth a damn.. you americans can own all the guns you want and kill all the people you want . as long as you dont kill a British torist i dont care. just keep your rambo idealisation out of my country.. its a sad sad day for all mature hard working americans who have to put up with the wanna be rambos who are compensating for other things that may be a little small maybe.... lol yeah justify it all you want but an m16 is not an instrument for home care nor is it a viable weapon for huinting. so it is not needed in the home. i thank god i dont live in a society that is willing to allow the leagle ownership of an item refined for killing the most amount of people fast. this bill is only being passed because some GI jo wannabe is watching the war on TV and wants to kill sadam the local deer.

03-03-2004, 12:09 AM	#56 (permalink)
Wolfie Join Date: May 2003 Location: Michigan Age: 33 Posts: 1,405	Re: The Clinton Ban could end next week... My thoughts on gun bans.... Nothing more than showy legislation introduced by bleeding heart liberals that are trying to rouse up the population for votes. Most gun laws are ineffective or not carried out anyways. Big event in the news about some crazy with a weapon, politicians rush to the microphones telling everyone about how guns are bad and how they are going to introduce gun law XYZ which is similar to gun law ABC which isn't been enforced. What are gun laws suppose to do (according to the politicians)? Remove guns from criminals Who follows these gun laws? Law abiding citizens. Do criminals care about these laws? Nope, if they want an assault rifle, then they can easily obtain one outside of the law which they did before the bans where in place to begin with. If this cycle keeps up, eventually rifles and shotguns will be banned, then handguns. And then what happens? Law abiding citizens don't have a gun for home protection while criminals use guns during their crimes. A bit of history... The Wild West was not really wild. In fact, with the exception of crimes in the saloons (mixing alcohol with guns is always bad), crime was really low in that area. Why? Not because of gun laws, not because of a huge police/marshal force....it was because most citizens owned guns and knew how to use them. Those are some of my random thoughts Wolfie sleeps soundly knowing that any criminals that bust into his home will have to face an enraged homeowner with a fully loaded shotgun

03-03-2004, 04:19 AM	#60 (permalink)
USN_Squid Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Denver Age: 38 Posts: 3,168	Re: The Clinton Ban could end next week... I'm with Cing on this one, we have laws in place that prevent felons from obtaining firearms legally Let's find a good way to stop the illegal purchases rather than incrementally banning all firearms. This AW ban is exactly that and was admitted to by the proponents of the ban. A little at a time and soon enough we're right there with the UK and Australia where home invasions have gone through the roof (no pun intended) since their gun ban. Some real facts for you: taken from here Fact: In 1994, you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon”.(62) This was before the Federal assault weapons ban. So let's outlaw beatings...oh wait they already are! Fact: “Assault weapons” were used in less than 2% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime (63) before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the Federal and California assault weapons confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides. (64) Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem: For California: • Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved an "assault weapon". • San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were "assault weapons". • San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were "assault weapons". For the rest of the nation: • Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were "assault weapons". • Just over 2% of criminals that used guns used “assault weapons”. • Only 1% of police officers murdered were killed using “assault weapons”. Fact: Only 1.4% of weapons recovered are of the models covered under Clinton’s 1994 assault weapons ban were used in crimes.(65) Fact: Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen. Fact: Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition(a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. (170) To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.(171) 62 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994 63 Gary Kleck, “Targeting Guns”, 1997, compilation of 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980-1994 64 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1993 65 From statewide recovery report from Connecticut (1988-1993) and Pennsylvania (1989-1994). 170 Gallant , Hills, Kopel, “Fear in Britain”, Independence Institute, July 18, 2000 171 Daily Telegraph, 1996 __________________ New to TG? Start here! Last edited by USN_Squid; 03-22-2006 at 05:43 PM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links