You Can Tell It's Election Year When....

[heinz57_79]

Debates start popping up all over the place. hehe Personally, I think they're good and healthy and in a lot of cases they help put some of the issues into a form that is more understandable than the political mumbo jumbo found in speeches etc. This is going to be fairly long, but i wanted to get my 2 cents in and it didn't really fit into any other thread. :)

Now, my dad (bless he heart *sigh*) got me a year's subscription to Reader's Digest. Mind you, I have no idea which way the magazine leans, whether liberal or conservative. I'm guessing more conservative. But in August's issue there are 2 interesting articles. One on Bush, one on Kerry. And they managed to stick with interviews and facts, without throwing in a lot of useless opinion. I thought I'd post a few things that stood out for me.

A Bush Quote:
"Freedom is not America's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world."

Ok, now besides being a very poorly worded sentence, it is also horrendously hypocritical coming from a man who is against gay marriage, abortion and affirmative action. Who's freedom is he speaking of? Not Americans' for he has just taken away the freedom of several large and significant groups.

From Dick Cheney who... "lambasted Kerry for voting against the first Gulf War in 1991, against an $87 billion propriation to help fund the US war effort in Iraq, and against weapons systems such as the MX missile and the B-1 bomber."

Cheney: "The Senator... has given us ample doubts on his judgement on vital issues of national security."

Why? Because he doesn't like us throwing ourselves into pointless wars? Because he doesn't like weapons of mass destruction? Because he can't see the point on taking $87 billion for war when it could be put to better use? I'd be more afraid of a trigger happy president than one who may be more inclined to resolve conflict by other means BEFORE resorting to bombing the hell out of a country that can barely defend itself.

Kerry has been in the Senate for 20 years, fought for his country and voted for 16 out of 19 defense appropriation bills.

Yes, Kerry fought in Vietnam, then came home, threw his ribbons away and protested the war. It was his right to! Those on the front lines were more able than anyone to see what a pointless war it was. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Kerry's plans for expanding health insurance to 95% of Americans is a great call. How will he do this, you ask? He will be able to pay for it by rescinding the Bush tax cuts for those making over $200,000. They need tax cuts WHY??? It's the ones that live below the poverty level (most of the country!) that need the tax breaks. Not those whose net worth is more than I will ever see in a lifetime.

Kerry also has plans to help the evironment, and at the same time take independence from Middle East oil. It will take alternative and renewable fuels, and faster adoption of new technologies of hybrid cars, but with a motivated man in office, I think it can be done.

And, in my opinion, I think the best person to handle international affairs is someone who has lived overseas, been exposed to other cultures. Kerry has been all over the world, was brought up in Germany, and speaks at least one foreign language. Bush can barely speak English!

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by heinz57_79
Kerry has been all over the world, was brought up in Germany, and speaks at least one foreign language.

You are correct.

Kerry did go to Paris and tried to negotiate peace with the Viet Cong.

Against the wishes and the laws of the United States.

Kerry's office wall also has the same awards he tossed over the wall.

One of Kerry's purple hearts came when he shot off an M-79 and almost killed himself..

"Seeing movement from an unknown source, the sailors opened fire on the movement," the letter says. "There was no hostile fire. When Kerry's rifle jammed, he picked up an M-79 grenade launcher and fired a grenade at a nearby object. This sprayed the boat with shrapnel from Kerry's own grenade, a tiny piece of which embedded in Kerry's arm."


Yikes!!!!!

Who's worse? The man that played soldier or the man who almost killed himslef playing soldier???

[lizbud]

You can tell it's an election year when.......... This is allowed
to happen without a word from George W. Bush. :mad:

Commemtary:

By Dianne Feinstein, Dianne Feinstein, a Democratic U.S. senator from California, is the chief sponsor of the renewal of the assault weapons ban. This article is adapted from comments made Tuesday on the Senate floor.


Ten years ago, Congress passed the assault weapons ban, one of the most important public safety measures this country has seen. Although it was not perfect, it represented the best we could do to stem the growth and spread of these weapons throughout our cities and states. But that legislation is going to expire Monday, despite the fact that we have 52 votes for its reauthorization (if it were allowed to come to the Senate floor) and the fact that nearly three-fourths of the American public supports the ban, as do two-thirds of gun owners and every major law enforcement organization in the country.

The National Rifle Assn. will say: The bill is cosmetic. It hasn't done anything. It has been ineffective.

Then why has the NRA made this legislation and its demise its No. 1 priority? The fact is the NRA is wrong. The percentage of banned assault weapons used in crimes is down by nearly two-thirds since 1994.

Presidents Clinton, Carter, Ford and Reagan, and even George W. Bush, have all expressed support for renewing the ban. But three days from today, none of this support will matter. The assault weapons ban will be history, one more victim of the powerful, selfish NRA and its brutal lobbying tactics. Because the president has steadfastly refused to put his money where his mouth is and help us renew the ban, it is going to expire without so much as even a vote in the House.

We have cried out in vain. There has been no response from the White House. Instead, the president quietly awaits Sept. 13 and hopes that after he lets the ban expire, he can again receive the endorsement of the NRA, because the NRA is not going to make its endorsement until the ban expires. This is truly a dark day.

The assault weapons legislation has worked. No legal owner has been denied a weapon. No weapon has been confiscated. Yet the supply of these weapons on the streets has declined. But come next week, companies will once again begin to churn out large-capacity ammunition devices and powerful, easily concealed military weapons, all for civilian use.

One advertisement now running in gun magazines is from a company called ArmaLite. In the ad, ArmaLite is offering a coupon for a free flash suppressor for anyone who buys one of their guns. A flash suppressor is used to prevent the flash of the gun when it is fired. So if you are using it, no one can see where you are, particularly at night, by the flash of the weapon.

The advertisement says: "And by the way … ArmaLite's rifles are made to be easily retrofitted with your flash suppressor and your other pre-ban features so you don't have to wait if you're choosing an ArmaLite."

That is what we are up against: flash suppressors for votes. It makes me sick to my stomach.

The ad states: "It is not legal to install this on a post-ban rifle until the assault weapons ban sunsets."

A recent study by the Consumer Federation of America found that companies are also gearing up to manufacture large-capacity ammunition clips.

One manufacturer told a caller from the Consumer Federation that there is a pent-up demand for 50-round magazines and larger.

Who needs a 50-round magazine? Hunting laws in every state restrict the number of bullets in a magazine to fewer than 10.

It is clear that time has run out. It is clear the president of the United States will not help, and this is truly a sad day for this nation.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by lizbud
You can tell it's an election year when.......... This is allowed
to happen without a word from George W. Bush. :mad:

Commemtary:

By Dianne Feinstein, Dianne Feinstein, a Democratic U.S. senator from California, is the chief sponsor of the renewal of the assault weapons ban. This article is adapted from comments made Tuesday on the Senate floor.
-----------------------------------------------

A recent study by the Consumer Federation of America found that companies are also gearing up to manufacture large-capacity ammunition clips.

One manufacturer told a caller from the Consumer Federation that there is a pent-up demand for 50-round magazines and larger.

Who needs a 50-round magazine? Hunting laws in every state restrict the number of bullets in a magazine to fewer than 10.



Ms feinstein carries a concealed weapon, wears a BP vest and
is against 'regular' people being issued CWPs.

Soldiers in Iraq have been asking Beretta, the makers of the m-92 pistol to make a magazine that will carry more rounds-They cannot - because of the AW ban........making large capacity magazines is not economical because those magazine cannot be sold to the public.


I do believe in gun control........Use both hands.

[lizbud]

Originally posted by RICHARD
Ms feinstein carries a concealed weapon, wears a BP vest and
is against 'regular' people being issued CWPs.



So what ??


As for

" Soldiers in Iraq have been asking Beretta, the makers of the m-92 pistol to make a magazine that will carry more rounds-They cannot - because of the AW ban........making large capacity magazines is not economical because those magazine cannot be sold to the public. "

This is BS, Prime BS. There are plenty of weapons made for the
military ,yet not sold to the public.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by lizbud
So what ??


As for

" Soldiers in Iraq have been asking Beretta, the makers of the m-92 pistol to make a magazine that will carry more rounds-They cannot - because of the AW ban........making large capacity magazines is not economical because those magazine cannot be sold to the public. "

This is BS, Prime BS. There are plenty of weapons made for the
military ,yet not sold to the public.


LOLOLOLOL,

there are civilian variants of the M-16, CAR-15 that are sold to/in the cilivilan market and they are single shot models, they do not have a full auto mode. They are the SAME models carried by the soldiers in Iraq.

You could, in the past, buy a kit to modify an AW to make them full auto.

You can buy a .50 caliber rifle, a Barrett model 468, that the military uses.....go to the web site.

I wasn't taking about the guns, I was talking about the magazines....

Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

And it is not easy for those bullets to pull the trigger!

I can't believe you would trot out that old chesnut. That's like saying "people don't cause car accidents, the engines do!"

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by Edwina's Secretary
And it is not easy for those bullets to pull the trigger!

I can't believe you would trot out that old chesnut. That's like saying "people don't cause car accidents, the engines do!"


Chumming with ridiculous statements always gets me a bite....
Without an engine you can't get into an accident, even I know that...

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.defense-training.com/quips/7Apr04.html

7 Apr 04

Can you believe this? We are defeating ourselves. From friend, Jeff Chudwin:

"A police officer and friend, just deployed to Iraq, is serving there now as a Marine officer. He is the thick of the fighting. He has only two Beretta M-9 magazines, and both (Checkmate) have weak springs. Pistol magazines are in short supply there. Ones that actually work are in even shorter supply!

His close friend in an adjacent police department was contacted and asked to assist my friend by acquiring several OEM (Beretta) pistol magazines and sending them over. The magazines were immediately ordered from a local police supply house, but we were told that we cannot make the purchase due to the ban on purchasing high capacity (normal capacity) magazines. BATF is asked to intervene. They arrogantly told us 'The military must take care of their own.' The chief of the department cannot even sign for the magazines, because the purchase is not for performance of law enforcement duties.'

Result, the Marine officer cannot obtain additional magazines through the military, and we cannot support him from our end unless we send him Clinton clips' (ten-round magazines) or locate pre-ban magazines. We are sending Wolff spring kits."

Comment: Stupid gun laws, designed from the beginning for harassment and little else, are now interfering with our war effort, and no one at BATF, in deed the whole federal system, seems to care. While our Marines die, bureaucrats and politicians dither!

/John
------------------------------



:eek:

[catland]

As an owner (well actually my husband is) of an AR-15 assault rifle and other fine weaponry and a member of my local gun club and the NRA, I'd like to say the following.

First, the law that didn't allow clips of more than 10 rounds was a joke. It only prevented the manufacture of larger clips after a certain deadline so the manufacturers cranked out millions of these clips before the manufacturing ban took place. The purchase of said clips was never outlawed. I have pre-ban clips in my home that have been purchased in just the past few years.

Second - the best way to insure that a military does not take over a government is to allow the people to bear arms. This is any military, anywhere.

Funny how this ban was set to expire just a couple of months before a presidential election.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Pup shoots man, saves litter mates....

guess this should be change to...Bullet shoots man, saves pups..

[DJFyrewolf36]

Originally posted by catland
As an owner (well actually my husband is) of an AR-15 assault rifle and other fine weaponry and a member of my local gun club and the NRA, I'd like to say the following.

First, the law that didn't allow clips of more than 10 rounds was a joke. It only prevented the manufacture of larger clips after a certain deadline so the manufacturers cranked out millions of these clips before the manufacturing ban took place. The purchase of said clips was never outlawed. I have pre-ban clips in my home that have been purchased in just the past few years.

Second - the best way to insure that a military does not take over a government is to allow the people to bear arms. This is any military, anywhere.

Funny how this ban was set to expire just a couple of months before a presidential election.

Yes, funny that. Never thought about that until now, thanks for bringing that up! And as an NRA member, I agree with you. Really the ban didn't deter people from crimes.

[Logan]

You Can Tell It's Election Year When.......

Pet Talkers argue about politics instead of animals and are solidly divided between parties, never to even regard the opinion of others (this seems to be equal on both sides in my opinion). :( :( :(

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by catland


First, the law that didn't allow clips of more than 10 rounds was a joke. It only prevented the manufacture of larger clips after a certain deadline so the manufacturers cranked out millions of these clips before the manufacturing ban took place. The purchase of said clips was never outlawed. I have pre-ban clips in my home that have been purchased in just the past few years.



You are correct....

But the military buys in bulk and through contracts in order to keep the troops supplied...

I don't think e-bay ships to Iraq..;)

[Aspen and Misty]

Originally posted by Logan
You Can Tell It's Election Year When.......

Pet Talkers argue about politics instead of animals and are solidly divided between parties, never to even regard the opinion of others (this seems to be equal on both sides in my opinion). :( :( :(

Agreed :(

Ashley

[Kfamr]

You can tell it's election year when....


There's nothing good to watch on TV. =\



P.S. I'm 100% for Kerry, although It doesn't matter because i'm unable to vote.

[catland]

Originally posted by Logan

Pet Talkers argue about politics instead of animals and are solidly divided between parties :( :( :(

So what gave it away, my NRA membership or the AR-15? Ok, you got me, I admit it now to the world.

I'm a Democrat ;)

[Logan]

Originally posted by catland
So what gave it away, my NRA membership or the AR-15? Ok, you got me, I admit it now to the world.

I'm a Democrat ;)

So we can cancel out each other's votes! :p The NRA has been calling my husband daily the last few weeks......he is a staunch Republican, maybe even more than I am.

I just hate to see the arguments go on and on. No one ever wins, and it has nothing to do with our pets, for sure. In that regard, we at least all think alive, we love them dearly. :)

[lizbud]

Originally posted by Logan


I just hate to see the arguments go on and on. No one ever wins, and it has nothing to do with our pets, for sure. In that regard, we at least all think alive, we love them dearly. :)

Just because we have different opinions does not
mean that we are all enemies or something. We just have
different opinions.

Besides, I think Richard doesn't really believe half the
stuff he writes here, he just LOVES to "stir the pot". :D

[Logan]

I know, Liz. I know. I'm just a wimp when it comes to arguing.....never have been a good arguer, face to face, and I am definitely not a good one in writing. It just wears me out sometimes on Pet Talk. I even considered asking Karen this week if there was a way to keep me out of the Dog House, where I didn't even see it!!!!! :o

[lizbud]

Logan,

I do understand. My Sister is just like that also.:)

I've got the "mouth" of the girls in my family.:D

[Logan]

I can't believe it. :o I just admitted to my buddy, Liz, that I'm a wimp. I am a wimp. I am a wimp. But a Republican wimp!!! ;)

[Soledad]

Do you have documentation about Dianne Feinstein carrying a concealed weapon?

Also, there is a difference between carrying a gun and being against AUTOMATIC, ASSAULT RIFLES!!!

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by Soledad
Do you have documentation about Dianne Feinstein carrying a concealed weapon?

Also, there is a difference between carrying a gun and being against AUTOMATIC, ASSAULT RIFLES!!!

http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html

And pictures of a STUPID DF holding a AW with her finger on the trigger. I can't pack, but she can??

She had everyone turn in their guns but kept hers....
WHAZUPWIDAT??


Soledad,

Open up your web browser and type what you are looking for
into the box, hit the 'search' button and away you go!!!!!


Liz,
I do happen to believe in what I post. Otherwise I'd fold like a deck of cards.......

And I really don't play cards. It's boring.

[Lady's Human]

Diane Feinstein....against guns for us, but well documented as thinking guns are okay for her.....

Carl Rowan.......Wrote diatribe after diatribe against the second amendment, BUT.............shot an intruder in his home with an illegal firearm

Rosie Odonnell...........against guns for us, but she used every means available to make sure her bodyguards could get concealed carry permits


The list of people who don't practice what they preach on the second amendment could go on and on.

The Assault weapons ban did nothing in the realm of fully automatic weapons, such as the infamous AK-47.

The assault weapons ban had no effect on crime, as the weapons banned by the legislation were never used much in crime to begin with. For that matter, NO gun legislation has an effect on crime, because the criminals don't get their weapons in gun stores or from FFL registered dealers, they get them from the black market. To add insult to injury, even if they did buy from a registered dealer, it would be perfectly legal for them to lie on the application to purchase, as the USSC has ruled that for a criminal to answer certain questions on the form honestly would be a violation of their 5th amendment rights.

The AWB was a piece of pandering feel good legislation that deserves to go into the trash heap where it belongs.

[Soledad]

Oh please. So if someone is a high profile person who requires protection they can't have ANY opinions on gun laws??? That makes no sense at all.

I find it hilarious and sad that the same administration that delights in scaring the crap out of the American people on a daily basis about terrorism wants to make it easy for terrorists to get their hands on automatic weapons.

The hypocrisy is blinding.

[dukedogsmom]

I don't believe in banning guns at all. It would only hurt the decent people. The criminals/terrorists could still get guns and then the rest of us would be screwed. I cannot stand Rosie Odonnel. It's been really nice not hearing about her.

[Soledad]

http://www2.stopthenra.com/ads/archive/osama_lg.gif

[buckner]

Originally posted by RICHARD
I do believe in gun control........Use both hands.

Richard, I worship and adore you 100% more because that statement. You are great, man.

[Lady's Human]

Soledad,

The 1994 assault weapons ban does not address fully automatic weapons at all. It addresses semi automatic weapons and bans/regulates them based on appearance, not function.

Fully automatic weapons, with or without the assault weapons ban, are legal to own and use, but highly restricted and taxed. Terrorists are not going to buy weapons at the local gun store, the regulations are too tight. It's easier to smuggle them into the country when they enter. Besides, an automatic weapon does less damage than many objects that one could legally obtain with no restrictions, like an 18 wheeler, a bag of fertilizer, etc. Legislation does not stop people from doing these things.

[Soledad]

Originally posted by Lady's Human

Fully automatic weapons, with or without the assault weapons ban, are legal to own and use, but highly restricted and taxed. Terrorists are not going to buy weapons at the local gun store, the regulations are too tight. It's easier to smuggle them into the country when they enter. Besides, an automatic weapon does less damage than many objects that one could legally obtain with no restrictions, like an 18 wheeler, a bag of fertilizer, etc. Legislation does not stop people from doing these things.

Oh, so as long as you can buy fertilizer unregulated we should have no gun laws. Right.:rolleyes:

[Lady's Human]

I have no problem with firearms regulations that actually make sense, such as prohibiting felons from owning firearms and mandatory sentences for someone convicted of using a firearm in a crime. However, the AWB does no such thing. It bans firearms based on appearance and not function. It is a nonsensical law that needs to go away.


Ted Kennedy's Car has killed more people than my guns.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by Lady's Human


Ted Kennedy's Car has killed more people than my guns.

Look at the Congress, who's job it was to reintroduce the legislation, I bet they have killed more people than Senator Kennedy's car.

[lizbud]

An editorial from today's LA Times says it all pretty well.


Blood on the NRA's Hands


Perhaps you remember Evan Foster. The 7-year-old was murdered in an Inglewood park in December 1997, just after he picked up his soccer trophy. Three of the 75 rounds fired from a gang member's assault rifle drilled into his head. The federal assault weapons ban was already in effect, and if you asked the National Rifle Assn. and its acolytes in Congress about Evan's murder, they would eagerly tell you that this law, which lawmakers have shamefully let expire today, would not have saved the child.

They would be right — and utterly deceitful.

Evan, his mother and his 10-month-old brother, Alec, had gotten back into their parked car when Rhonda Foster saw she was sandwiched between a vehicle full of gang members, their rifles pointed, and another car in which the shooters mistakenly thought they saw a rival. Evan was hit as his mother frantically tried to back out of the way. He died instantly. Fragments from some of the dozen rounds that strafed their car hit Alec, leaving the vision in his left eye limited.

NRA leaders, who have been gunning for the assault weapons ban since it took effect in 1994, would quickly point out that the MAC-90 that killed Evan wasn't among the handful of models covered by the federal law. That's true. The ban's author, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), never believed that law alone would end assault gun crime. That's why she pushed Congress over the years to limit the sale of high-volume bullet magazines, for tougher oversight of gun dealers and to expand the ban to guns with certain generic features, like flash suppressors. Guess which group blocked her every effort?

Even if the MAC-90 had been included in the federal ban, the NRA would argue, the law obviously failed to stop illegal traffic in assault guns. True again. Yet by that logic, legislators should drop laws against driving drunk because some people are so irresponsible they will drink and drive regardless.

A large majority of Americans — and most gun owners — have steadfastly supported the assault gun ban. So why did Congress let it die, allowing dealers to once more peddle these weapons of mass destruction?

Look to President Bush, who once said he supported the ban. His deliberate silence as the law's time ran out justified congressional leaders in arguing that if the president wasn't behind the prohibition, there was no point in voting to renew it. So today the expired ban is a trophy Bush can lay at the NRA's feet as the group readies its presidential endorsement.

Rhonda and Ruett Foster still have Evan's soccer trophy. Rhonda talks freely about her son, about a poem he wrote, the sports he liked. But last week, telling the story of his horrific murder yet again, there was anger in her voice.

"For our president to follow the NRA instead of the majority of America," she said quietly, "shows that he doesn't care about the lives of our children. Letting this ban expire means more of these weapons will be available. It's outrageous."

[Lady's Human]

Given that the perp in question was a gang member,it is highly unlikely that the weapon in question was legally acquired. If someone would please explain to me how restricting the activities of law abiding citizens is going to bring people who are already felons into line I would appreciate it. The problem with gun control legislation is that it has no impact whatsoever on the ability of criminals to acquire weapons, it just makes it tough for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. The gun control laws we already have in place are not enforced. The Bartley-Fox law in Massachusetts is supposed to mandate a minimum one year sentence for illegal posession of a firearm, but read the court pages of the Mass papers. NEVER have I seen someone sentenced under that law, with the sole exception being a conneticut businessman who stopped by a police station to turn in his weapon after he realized he had crossed the state line with it. He was convicted of violating the law and got a year in jail. The 16 gang members in Framingham who robbed a gun store and stole 17 firearms got suspended sentences of 6 months probation. Enforce the laws we already have, they're restrictive enough.

[jonza]

Originally posted by Lady's Human
I have no problem with firearms regulations that actually make sense, such as prohibiting felons from owning firearms and mandatory sentences for someone convicted of using a firearm in a crime. However, the AWB does no such thing. It bans firearms based on appearance and not function. It is a nonsensical law that needs to go away.
That may or may not be true, I just can't understand why it's so important for Americans to feel the need for "military style automatic assault weapons" though. Are they essential for hunting? Personally I've never felt the need to hunt and shoot innocent animals, though culling to control populations I can accept. I wouldn't feel at all proud of having crept up on some animal and shooting it. The only "shooting" of wild animals I like is with a camera. The need to kill them I just do not comprehend. Some sort of macho power trip perhaps? It's beyond me.

On the other hand, if the reason for owning guns is fear and the need for self defense, then their must surely be some problem in a civilized society. I remember when we were on holiday in The Dominican Republic we met a very pleasant couple from Texas. We got to talking about guns, and Gini said that it was absolutely essential for her to have a gun in her bedside drawer, or she would not feel safe, would not be able to sleep. That's a bit of an admission of failure and a bit sad isn't it? Not the kind of society I would like to live in if that is the reasoning behind the need for guns.

Apparently this bill was set to expire exactly 10 years later if it wasn't renewed in Congress, and President George W. Bush never pushed Congressional leaders to move the renewal legislation.
So it seems that President Bush is going against the direction of quite a few other Presidents here. Apart from Clinton, I believe that former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan wrote to all members of the House to encourage them to pass the ban at the time.

Perhaps the answer is here:
"While manufacturers look for a boom in business as people buy up previously banned weapons like AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s, police chiefs warn of an upsurge in crime".
Another example of the President's big business buddies only being interested in their own profit, against the advice of police chiefs, who presumably know what they're talking about perhaps?

[heinz57_79]

Number of Deaths Caused By Guns Each Year:

Japan = 39
Australia = 65
UK - 68
Canada = 165
France = 255
Germany = 281
USA = 11,127

In the year 2000, there were 28,663 injuries caused by firearms in the US.

Nuf Sed.

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by buckner
Richard, I worship and adore you 100% more because that statement. You are great, man.

It's a macho gun ownership thing..

You can adore me, But I don't do well being worshipped- I adore you too!
:D


I have a M-1 tanker, 44 mag, a beautiful S&W 38, an old bolt action Eddie Bauer shotgun, a really nice and old Aussie single shot rifle, 30.06 hunting rifle, and a .30 cal Krag-Jorgenson......which happens to be a Norwegian military rifle. ;)

I do have a Louisville slugger 35" 24 oz Fungo I keep loaded by my bedside. I just have to learn to keep my head down and step into the intruder.

-----------------------------------------

The US Congress has had 10 years to extend the the gun ban.

So once it expires we blame Bush, instead of blaming the inept congressmen that didn't reintroduce the bill.

Responsibility..... such a fleeting concept!!

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by heinz57_79
Number of Deaths Caused By Guns Each Year:

Japan = 39
Australia = 65
UK - 68
Canada = 165
France = 255
Germany = 281
USA = 11,127

In the year 2000, there were 28,663 injuries caused by firearms in the US.

Nuf Sed.

Percentage based on the population of the countries posted.


Can .000005187

FRA .000004223

US .00000385

Aust. .000003308

UK .000001137

Ger. .00000343

Japan .000000305



---------------------------------------
2000 GSWs by US pop...

.00009942

[dukedogsmom]

Amen, Lady's Human! I don't see a need to own an automatic rifle myself. However, I'll be :o if someone is going to take away my right to own any gun at all. Like I said before, it's not the law abiding citizens causing the gun problems in the first place. Why take away our rights because the criminals are bad? They're going to acquire weapons no matter what.

[catland]

Its just politics people. This ban was conveniently designed to expire during an election year (I know I'm repeating myself here but hey, I'm getting old.;) ).

I'm no fan of Bush, but I do have to agree that he can't be held accountable just because the congress didn't get around to it (why? - because its an election year).

Another way to look at it is that timing is everything. No one could have predicted 10 years ago how things would be today. I think that a very different attitude about weapons exist now.
We now focus on the World Trade Center, terrorists lurking who knows where, orange alerts, and Al-Queda.

I think that all the Democrat politicians who are advocating a return of the ban are missing the big picture here. (and they aren't winning my vote in the process) We feel unsafe and insecure (why else do we continue to drive big SUV's?) and we need to feel stronger and less afraid and yes, an AR-15 or a Berretta 9mm does help alliviate that fear. (if only I can remember how to turn off the safety)

ok - I'm done for now.

[Soledad]

Who said you had a RIGHT to an automatic assault rifle? You have the right to bear arms, not ANY arms at ANY cost. I don't understand why you'd feel not only the need for this type of weapon, but that you had some sort of God given right to it. Consequences be damned.

No, gang members don't usually line up and register their guns, but they get them from someone.

And crime HAS gone down since this has been enacted. How could you argue otherwise?

P.S. Thanks Karen! ;)

[Lady's Human]

Gang members get their weapons from many sources, mosty from theft and smuggling. Crime has NOT been impacted by this ban, as the weapons banned were never used in any large percentage of crime to begin with. Less than 1% of weapons used in crime were of the types banned by this flawed legislation, and this percentage did not go down in any appreciable manner during the ban period. The concept of altering the behavior of the law abiding populace to affect criminal behavior has got to end. It is nonsensical to think that restricting the activities of law abiding citizens will have any effect on criminals, as by definition they already ignore the law.

[dukedogsmom]

I was referring to my right to own what we call a regular firearm, such as a 9mm, not an AK47 or whatever.

[RICHARD]

Man made fence out of bomb shells

Russian military officials have issued a warning after a man made a garden fence out of 28 unexploded bomb shells.

They are warning locals near an army training site in Morozovo, in the Novosibirsk region, to stop using unexploded shells as building material.

Police officers on a routine patrol who spotted the fence called in bomb disposal experts who destroyed the shells, local media reported.

A spokesman for local authorities was quoted as saying: "This is not the first case of missiles being used by local residents for domestic needs."

In the past shells have turned up used in building houses, items of furniture and in one case as part of an outdoor toilet.

-------------------------
And we are worried about gang members???


:eek:

[Soledad]

Originally posted by Lady's Human
Crime has NOT been impacted by this ban, as the weapons banned were never used in any large percentage of crime to begin with. Less than 1% of weapons used in crime were of the types banned by this flawed legislation, and this percentage did not go down in any appreciable manner during the ban period.

I guess that's why the police have supported continuing the ban. :rolleyes:


I think I'll stick to the experts and not the gun hording nutjobs who insist it's their God given right to have access to any weapon they want.

When are people going to stop believing the propoganda that the NRA puts out there and start thinking about the welfare of the country rather than their selfish needs.

[Lady's Human]

The statistics are not from the NRA, they're from the FBI. When in this have I ever insulted you, soledad? I am not a "Gun hoarding nutjob". If you want to push for a constitutional amendment to override the second amendment or get a USSC decision on the constitutionality of gun ownership, fine. Until then, the Second amendment is the law of the land.

My stance on this issue has nothing to do with my "selfish needs". It has to do with constitutional law, and also the fact that gun bans do nothing more than restrict the activity of law abiding individuals, and have no effect on crime. If, again, the courts and the police would start enforcing the laws already on the books it would have a far more tangible effect on crime than creating new laws that judges and prosecutors can arbitrarily apply.

[RICHARD]

Someone wasn't paying attention in their Statistics class.:eek:

[Soledad]

Originally posted by Lady's Human
The statistics are not from the NRA, they're from the FBI. When in this have I ever insulted you, soledad? I am not a "Gun hoarding nutjob". If you want to push for a constitutional amendment to override the second amendment or get a USSC decision on the constitutionality of gun ownership, fine. Until then, the Second amendment is the law of the land.

My stance on this issue has nothing to do with my "selfish needs". It has to do with constitutional law, and also the fact that gun bans do nothing more than restrict the activity of law abiding individuals, and have no effect on crime. If, again, the courts and the police would start enforcing the laws already on the books it would have a far more tangible effect on crime than creating new laws that judges and prosecutors can arbitrarily apply.

I apologize, Lady's Human. You have never insulted me. You're absolutely right about that.

This issue just really ticks me off. I can respect your dedication to the Constitution, but I do not think that our forefathers had any clue what we would turn "arms" into and I don't feel anyone in this country should feel they have a right to an uzi.

It's so insane to me I find it hard to believe. But you are not a gun hoarding nutjob. Sorry for the inference to the contrary.

[Lady's Human]

When the Second amendment came into being, it was fairly common for people to own cannon for various reasons. Protecting their ships, lands, and to supply the militia in times of war. While it would admittedly be a tough go to haul your 6 pounder napolean into the neighborhood 7-11, one could do far more damage with a cannon than one could with any semi automatic firearm. One round of grapeshot on the battlefield could literally knock down dozens of soldiers. I just wish they had adopted Hamilton's original language for the second amendment instead of the way it was passed, as it was much more easily understood.


My main irritation with the whole assault weapons ban discussion is that people are mislead about what the law actually did. It did not ban any fully automatic firearms, those are limited and controlled rather severely under other legislation. (If you want to legally own an M-60 machine gun, you can, just have a squeaky clean record, and be prepared to pay several thousand dollars for the weapon and the annual fees. Last quote I saw was in the 10,000 dollar range). All the legislation did was to restrict what SEMI automatic weapons were available.

The assault weapons ban also did not control ammunition magazines manufactured prior to the ban. While pre existing magazines were a grey area, they could still be obtained as long as they were manufactured before 1994.

The assault weapons ban also did nothing to ban any weapon based on functionality. It banned weapons based on cosmetic characteristics, such as whether it had a bayonet lug, a fixed flash suppressor, or a folding stock. A Colt AR-15 manufactured after the ban could still be legally obtained, but you couldn't have one with a flash suppressor. A TEC-9 could still be purchased, but the folding stock had to be welded in place. It was a ludicrous piece of legislation which was nothing more than a way for congress to look good for their constituents without actually doing anything other than make life difficult for people who were already following the laws.

As far as the UZI you mention in your post? A semi automatic UZI (as in a gun that has the same function as a Glock 9mm pistol, just look meaner) will run you about $2500. A fully automatic version, before you go through the permitting process (which will probably cost you about $2000 in fees) will cost you $8500, not including transfer fees and annual taxes. The problem does not lie with legally owned weapons. The problem is that people can import them on the black market and sell them ILLEGALLY with little fear of getting caught, and the black market weapons are far cheaper than the ones that are legally obtained.

[Lady's Human]

Soledad, Apology accepted. No need to get nasty. Leave that to Carville and Ingrahm.