Jump to content
miscellaneous

Assault Weapon Ban Lifted

Recommended Posts

As it stands now, Fully automatic weapons are still illegal despite the lifting of the ban. They CAN be aquired, but you need special permits. Either way, you can't use them for hunting. Same deal with supressors and silencers - If you can give the ATF a good reason why you need one (and pay them a large one time tax fee) you can get licenses to own them.

 

g36.jpg

G36 - high capacity magazine, full auto/semi, folding stock = assault weapon.

 

as_sl9.jpg

Same gun, renamed SL9 - semi automatic only, low capacty magazine, fixed stock, no flash suppressor or integrated red dot sight = standard rifle.

 

If you've got a beef with certain weapons making it unfair to the animal, as many people do...the animal has little chance either way. But moreso than better weapons, traps are the inhumane, unfair part in my eyes...if you're not hunting for food because you HAVE to, laying traps and coming back to shoot a dehydrated deer after it's been stuck in a rusty bear trap for a few days is just lazy...and kinda sick.

Edited by Sparq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't possibly understand why an ordinary citizen needs a weapon, i can't understand it... honestly, it is one of the craziest things i have ever heard... and, of course, who could be the author of such a law? Bush, Bush... always Bush... please, americans, finish with him in the elections... but, of course, the League of the Rifle is one of the supporters and the ones who have invested a LOT of money on Bush's campaign, so Bush had to give them the favor back...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What purpose doe a battle axe have other than novelty? People buy them as collectors, or just to say they have one...but how often is a battle axe used in an assault?

 

I don't buy the 'guns promote violence' bit. From the point of view of a criminal...woiuld you prefer to rob someone who is guaranteed by law to be unarmed, or someone living in a state where they may very well be packing a gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first of all battle axes arent quite as user friendly as a gun....i will admit that there is some skill involved in shooting a gun...but to properly weild a melee weapon one has to train with it and be physically athletic...not to mention running around town with a bloodied battleaxe is considerably suspicious...however at close range a gun is considerably easy to use, point and pull the trigger...moreover a msall gun like a pistol or an uzi could be concealed easily

 

 

and is not the US a state where everyone has a chance of weilding a gun already? They still have more crime than Canada, more guns at school, and more murders per capita...now all we are doing is making it so that a criminal who goes "oh shit he might have a pistol" be able to go "well he might have a pistol, or he might have an uzi, but whtever i got an uzi myself, i can take him"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realise that the battle axe example is a bit flawed, but that's what it was - an example. In the states, everyone can weild a gun, sure - but not all states allow concealed carry. And with the justice system these days it seems like the criminal has more rights than the victim. Some guy breaks in to your house with a butcher knife in the middle of the night and you shoot him - chances are if you aren't charged with a firearms offence, the guy you shot will sue...if he survives.

 

Flood a society with guns, and there are two possible outcomes - chaos or relative order. If everyone has a gun, the armed criminal loses his advantage. Unfortunately, alot of people are stupid. I wouldn't trust most of the people I know with a gun, and the ideal outcome is generally not what happens when those involved are morons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy the 'guns promote violence' bit. From the point of view of a criminal...woiuld you prefer to rob someone who is guaranteed by law to be unarmed, or someone living in a state where they may very well be packing a gun?

that argument you just posed kicks ass. I'm anti-gun, but that is a powerful argument.

 

That may explain why statistics do show that more guns actually = a safer society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First ones are at the bottom....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I honestly don't see how owning and deriving pleasure from a firearm is anymore useless than any other hobby

 

my uncle gary was a responsible gun owner (as most of my extended family are). he lived alone, and kept his shotgun and rifle locked up safely in a metal storage cabinet. he used to walk down to the farm down the road to buy fresh milk and play cards with the farm owner every couple of weeks.

 

on one of these such days, a couple of vagrants happened past his home. noting that nobody was home, they decided to go inside, find the truck keys, and make off with his chevy. they couldn't find the keys anywhere in the house, so they figured they were kept inside the locked metal cabinet. so they smashed the lock off the cabinet, and lo and behold, there was a rifle and a shotgun.

 

long story short, my uncle ended up half-buried in his back yard with his head blown off.

 

i collect coins. if a couple of vagrants broke into my house, they wouldn't be able to blow my head off with them. if my little sister found them, she wouldn't be able to accidently shoot herself in the foot. if the kids next door were being babysat and they found them, they wouldn't mistake my coins for toys, and end up shooting each other.

 

so there's a considerable difference between being a gun collector or a gun hobbyist and someone who's into, say, collecting stamps.

 

i find it shows the infinite wisdom of the canadian government where i could purchase a high-powered handgun to be a gun hobbyist, but i cannot purchase nunchaku to practice karate. yet, somehow, i still find myself able to enjoy my life without nunchaku. people ask me how i can go on living, and i just say "it's hard, but i manage. i just take it day by day".

 

jay | Email | Homepage | 09.15.04 - 3:49 pm | #

 

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

 

not having to worry about the rights and wrongs of dangerous weapons, and focusing on the environment, peace, science, and love.....MMMMMMMMM.

 

-M

 

mark | Email | Homepage | 09.15.04 - 12:47 pm | #

 

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

 

I do beleive that you should be able to have any gun that you wish. I beleive strongly in freedom, if the goverment can control what you can and can not own that's not freedom thats regulated freedom, today it may be guns, tommorow it could be you're favorite movie.

 

Eh. Matt dont forget the FMAS, 900 rounds per minute. MMMM....

 

Nathan Gillett | Email | Homepage | 09.15.04 - 12:33 pm | #

 

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

 

Machine guns have been used for hunting deer. One of my professors told us about a hunter who came into the woods where his father was some kind of park ranger. The hunter was carrying an M16 and just turned a deer into mush firing bullet after bullet through it.

 

What the hell kind of reason do people need to have this kind of weapon around? I can understand killing an animal for food. I can understand killing an animal if it's your life or the animal who's attacking you. But just destroying an animal?

 

By the way, the US Bill of Rights guarantees the right to bear arms, but nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights (to my knowledge) does it say anything about the right to own or purchase ammunition. Maybe that's how to hit this problem...

 

Timothy | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 7:27 pm | #

 

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

 

"As I've stated prior to this, and will again, the love affair with the gun is a useless one predicated on fear."

 

~Matt

 

 

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree, and this statement is borderline offensive to responsible firearm owners. The same go to all those that believe gun-owners simply buy guns because it gives them a 'power-trip' or some such. Such narrow-mindedness is appalling, especially here on this website.

 

The problem is most people have this pre-conceived opinion about guns and gun-owners. That we own our guns out of fear is absurd. Perhaps some people do, but the majority of legal gun owners, in my experience, own guns for recreational purposes (hunting, sport shooting, skeet shooting, pest-control) which is completely legitamate. Do I hunt out of fear? Do I shoot clay pigeons because I want to empower myself? Absolutely not.

 

Brad | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 6:31 pm | #

 

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

 

Todd-your experience is appreciated and heartfelt. As you say, responsibility 'should be' a huge aspect to gun ownership / use. Unfortunately that is not the case, and (guns+people=death). When I was five my father took me fishing, when my son was five I took him fishing. Society views gun ownership / use as socially acceptable, just as drunk driving was 20 yrs. ago, even though it may be fun for some, it serves no real purpose except to end life. One can only hope that eventually everyone will think like me.

 

Troy | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 4:36 pm | #

 

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

 

This is an interesting link for those of you confused about what the '94 ban does and does not do (which appears to be many of you). It shows a M16, compares it to a pre-ban AR15 and then compares both to a post-ban AR15 and a hunting rifle.

 

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/aw94.htm

 

Todd | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 3:11 pm | #

 

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

 

Wow, this one has gotten a lot of response. I'll chime in with my 2 cents. Not sure if it's already been mentioned but from what I've read and saw on Nightline last week, many people considered that assult weapons ban pretty useless. I was shocked at what other types of guns that were just as bad, or worse, were not included in this so-called ban. There were ridiculous loopholes all over the place, which become obvious to anyone who actually takes time to read the thing and compare the "banned" weapons to those freely available.

 

Perhaps those who are opposed would be better suited to push for a new law instead of getting an old one, that looked like swiss cheese, renewed.

 

Blah | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 2:56 pm | #

 

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

 

In response to Adam's post, not all gun owners are anti-gun control. As far as gun registration is concerned, I'm personally all for it. I wouldn't mind anything up a month's waiting period, nor would I mind a background check being required before I can take a new gun home.

 

However, when it comes to no longer allowing me to own something because a senator thinks it looks frightening, I draw the line. The government has no business telling me what I can or cannot keep safely locked away in my home until I have proven I cannot be responsible with it.

 

Regarding Troy's post, I served very briefly in the Army. I was discharged psychiatrically, because I could no longer support the evil that my country does in the name of homeland security. I do however remember the desensitization training that infantry soldiers (like myself) had to go through.

 

It was, admittedly, horrifying. It certainly would have been much worse had I experienced it first-hand, also. But banning guns isn't going to stop it.

 

Regarding children who die as a result of irresponsible gun owners, that's due to another human being acting irresponsibly. It's tragic, but if one desires to keep guns in the home, they should be UNLOADED and LOCKED away and the parents should teach the children to safely handle them at a young age. My father took me to the range with the .22 at five and I have treated firearms with the care required ever since.

 

The tragedy that goes on today is little different that the tragedies that have occurred since our species learned to take another life. It is a profoundly human problem and not the fault of a simple machine.

 

Todd | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 2:51 pm | #

 

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

 

Now I'm no American, but as far as I know that's what the whole 2nd ammendment is all about. I'll paraphrase it as "the right to bear arms." So technically Americans do have a legitimate constitutional right to own firearms. Whether or not the original intent of the ammendment still applies today is another debate

 

That's the way I meant it. yes, it's in the American constitution, but that people still think that the right to bear arms still applies today is... well... it's not right. Even worse, those same people tend to equate "gun control" with the government taking away their guns. Gun control is about trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands, not taking away everyone's gun.

 

So, basically I meant "legitimate" in the sense that the ability to own a gun is somehow so important and endangered that it needs to be in the constitution.

 

Adam | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 1:53 pm | #

 

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

 

I would venture to say that most gun owners and most commentators on this post with the opinion that owning and using guns for whatever purpose have not had their child accidently blow their head off, have not been shot themselves, have not had family/friends murdered with guns, have not been up close and personal with the carnage and grief guns cause throughout the world. I would venture to say, its more about distorted glamorization and the need to feel powerful in one's own little mind, than it is about rights.

 

Troy | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 1:32 pm | #

 

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

 

Just to comment on something that keeps getting brought up here. The whole thing about hunters needing to have the right to own semi automatic guns I think is absurbed. My Grandfather and his friends were hunters and none of them owned any semi automatic weapons. And all the people that I know that still go hunting do not own such weapons, and do not see the need too. Just something to think about .

thank-you

 

Heather Blakely | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 1:05 pm | #

 

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

 

I honestly don't see how owning and deriving pleasure from a firearm is anymore useless than any other hobby. In itself it is not truly harmful, and I certainly am uncomfortable with my nation passing any more restrictive laws on the populace. The controversy in the US is less about the ownership of weapons than it is about the erosion of American rights. It is widely believed by gun owners that the proponents of the Brady Bill desire the eventual ban of all firearms. Obviously, if that were the goal, it would be accomplished gradually and through laws like the Brady Bill.

 

People will invariably do what they want anyway, and banning guns is as harmful and ineffective as the ban on drug use. All such a ban would do is restrict the rights of responsible adults and fund crime. Criminals already have the ability to obtain and sell guns in order to make a great deal of profit, why should the federal government help them any by providing them with more customers?

 

As far as my gun ownership being predicated on fear, I don't think anyone has the right to judge why I choose to own anything. I own guns because I enjoy them, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Fear might be a major reason that some people own weapons, but that's also fine. There's nothing wrong with being prepared. I don't see how banning guns would make anyone less afraid, either.

 

If I'm not supposed to fear my neighbor, what do I care if he has a firearm in his home?

 

Todd | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 12:28 pm | #

 

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

 

I believe that the entire conflict of owning a firearm, or more specifically feeling as though one "needs" to own one, is a derect consequence of fear and nothing more. Everyday people are being pumped full of fear by modern day media which needs taht to fuel itself. People are driven to believe that there's always someone out to get them, that behind every closed door and around every corner is some threat to your safety just waiting to attack. Naturally people become fearful, they feel they dont have control. By owning a weapon you gain a little piece of mind that when, and if, the time comes when you are confronted by an enemy you will be ready to counterattack. If you get so caught up in the possibilities of what COULD happen, no matter how likely or unlikely it may seem, you tend to forget a very important thing. And that is to just live your life, the here and now. Its very much like the Wizzard of Oz. The media builds up this great wizzard, who is all powerful and could crush you if you're not careful. ANd you buy it, you're scared that he is in fact out to get you. In the end though, you draw back the curtain and find something completely surprising. This wizzard, that being that is supposidly so evil and powerful, he is nothing more than just another person, like you or me.

 

JMB | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 10:36 am | #

 

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

 

As I've stated prior to this, and will again, the love affair with the gun is a useless one predicated on fear. That said, being that the US is the leading arms dealer in the world, it doesn't surprise me that Americans would defend their right to own such guns, as if it provides some form of "happiness" that without they would be destitute.

 

As for the size of rounds, who cares. The outcome is the same.

 

Matthew Good | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 10:33 am | #

 

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

 

To finish my nitpick:

 

A person wishing to purchase a fully-automatic weapon in the US must pay a $200 tax stamp, undergo a federal background check or several months, get a signature for permission to own by the chief law enforcement officer in his district and finally cough up the money for the gun (generally in excess of $5,000 USD).

 

Only one such weapon has ever been used in a crime, and this was by a police officer who shot his informant.

 

Todd | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 10:30 am | #

 

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

 

I'd like to address a few issues raised on not only the blog, but in the comments section here. First of all, I am a 19 year old American, and a gun owner. Six months after I turned 18 a purchased a WASR-10, an AK-47 variant:

 

http://www.ak-47.us/pic/WASR-10/WASR-10-002.jpg

 

I also purchased a PTR-91 several months later, which is a semi-automatic version of a Heckler and Koch G3 battle rifle:

 

http://www.jldenter.com/PTR-91%20riflepage...es/PTR-91-1.JPG

 

These were both purchased legally, during the '94-'04 assault weapons ban. I am registered as the owner of both rifles.

 

Nitpick: Matt, the AK-47 does not shoot a 7.62N (or NATO) round, it shoots the 7.62x39mm round, the G3 shoots the 7.62N (or 7.62x51mm).

 

What most everyone who has posted is missing is that the Assault Weapons Ban(AWB) is purely a cosmetic law. The only thing it effectively prevented me from doing was adding a flash suppressor, bayonet or collapsable stock to either of my rifles. Semi-auto rifles that were supposedly banned were only banned if they had a foreign receiver, so American firearms distributors manufactured a new, American receiver to make the "banned" weapons legal.

 

What do I personally own these weapons for? Range shooting; there are few things more fun than shooting a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine. The vast majority of gun owners like myself are not interested in killing anything with these rifles (I don't even enjoy hunting). Although an AR15 is supposedly an excellent gun for shooting groundhogs.

 

I don't believe these weapons should be illegal because more legislature is never going to prevent crime. Someone determined to hurt others is simply not going to be stopped by a law, they already intend to do something illegal; why would they care if their tool of choice is banned? There are plenty of unregistered weapons in the US, and most of the weapons used in crime have never been legally purchased. I know I wouldn't want to register myself as the owner of a weapon I intend to use illegally.

 

I also take issue with the idea that the police protect the citizens they serve from crime: that is an almost impossible task. Police are only effective in catching persons for a crime they have already committed. Only the individual being victimized can effectively protect himself, and that is why gun ownership should be legal. Criminals aren't too fond of armed citizens.

 

You might argue that a semi-automatic rifle is not necessary for protection, but keep in mind that during WW2, Americans sent thousands of family-owned, semi-automatic weapons to British citizens so that they might protect themselves from the Germans. Certainly, circumstances this dire are not likely in America, but an armed populace is generally a safer one.

 

One final nitpick: Fully automatic weapons are legal in many states in the US. The purchaser is required to pay a tax stamp of $200 every time he wishes to purchase one, underg

 

Todd | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 10:27 am | #

 

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

 

And I quote -

"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 words "regulated", "necessary" and "security" stand out don't they?

 

This text has been abused like a high school sustitute teacher. I'm surprised it doesn't now read "The right to arm bears"

 

Guns don't kill people.

People with GUNS kill people.

Last time I checked, John Lennon wasn't wrestled to death, he was shot

needlessly

 

Brent | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 10:27 am | #

 

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

 

I believe that the entire conflict of owning a firearm, or more specifically feeling as though one "needs" to own one, is a derect consequence of fear and nothing more. Everyday people are being pumped full of fear by modern day media which needs taht to fuel itself. People are driven to believe that there's always someone out to get them, that behind every closed door and around every corner is some threat to your safety just waiting to attack. Naturally people become fearful, they feel they dont have control. By owning a weapon you gain a little piece of mind that when, and if, the time comes when you are confronted by an enemy you will be ready to counterattack. If you get so caught up in the possibilities of what COULD happen, no matter how likely or unlikely it may seem, you tend to forget a very important thing. And that is to just live your life, the here and now. Its very much like the Wizzard of Oz. The media builds up this great wizzard, who is all powerful and could crush you if you're not careful. ANd you buy it, you're scared that he is in fact out to get you. In the end though, you draw back the curtain and find something completely surprising. This wizzard, that being that is supposidly so evil and powerful, he is nothing more than just another person, like you or me.

 

JMB | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 10:23 am | #

 

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

 

If you live in a forest? How many North Americans hunt to ensure their survival?

 

As for freedom itself being repressed, it's an American constitutional right. Other nations have strict laws about guns and are probably far more free than the states is at present.

 

That said, if you love guns so much that you have to defend them that says just about all that needs to be said. Man existed for thousands of years without them just fine.

 

Matthew Good | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 9:01 am | #

 

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

 

Justin,

I guess I missed the "semi" in front of the word automatic. But regardless of the speed of the gun in which it fires it really does not matter. What matters is the amount of guns that will be available for sale to any one that can produce the vaild id that is needed. And for those people who make money on fake ID's no one can stop the guns from getting into the wrong hands.

 

Heather Blakely | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 8:34 am | #

 

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

 

I agree with Matt on the issue of automatic weapons. Even though I am for the ability and the priviledge that the 2nd amendment gives us. A fully automated rifle has no place in the hands of any civilian.

 

[on a lighter note... happy to see the show in Buffalo this November]

 

Mike Lazzaro | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 8:27 am | #

 

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

 

Ben-

"id like to ask you directly about something that has been argued by a few people on here. i understand your reasons for feeling the way you do and i respect that, but how do you respond to the statement that guns are no longer a needed part of society or that the 2nd amendment doesnt apply to us today?"

 

I typed out a whole response but then my internet stopped working. I'm going to have to give you the shortened version before I leave for school.

 

"guns are no longer a needed part of society"

The statement only applies for people who live in cities. Canada is a vast wilderness and not everyone lives in Toronto or Vancouver ;) . Guns are needed for hunting by First Nations, the Inuit, and by anybody who chooses to live a forest. In cities, I agree that guns are not needed. However, sports, entertainment, music, are not needed as well. If someone kills with a baseball bat, the baseball bat will not be banned but the murderer would go to jail. I think guns should be dealt with in the same way because guns/shooting are a hobby for some people.

 

"2nd amendment doesnt apply to us today"

I do not know much about the second amendment, only that it gives Americans the right to own guns. I have never used this to defend guns. Constitutions can be changed and as someone pointed out earliar, this was written in a different time. I agree with this statement but still think that people should be able to own guns because of personal freedom.

 

Justin | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 8:04 am | #

 

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

 

Matt you specifically blame the republicans. The democrats didn't step up to the plate either.

 

Both parties are guilty.

 

Corey Hawkey | Email | Homepage | 09.14.04 - 7:36 am | #

 

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

 

Justin:

 

"You're right in saying that there will not be a cultural implosion if all guns were banned. However, there is also such a thing called tyranny of the majority where the minority are oppressed through democracy. When we start giving up small pieces of freedom just because it doesn't affect us, future generations will have to face the consequences. I'm not just referring to guns here but to every we each hold dear (e.g. privacy of information, freedom to practice religion, being able to write to government members). "

 

hi, i was the anonymous postedr from before, only because i wasnt paying attention when submitting my comment

 

anyways, id like to ask you directly about something that has been argued by a few people on here. i understand your reasons for feeling the way you do and i respect that, but how do you respond to the statement that guns are no longer a needed part of society or that the 2nd amendment doesnt apply to us today?

ben

 

ben | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 11:20 pm | #

 

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

 

Matt, that is exactly what I was going to say, you beat me to it, so I'll add- a few months back (before becoming fearless), I was studying the Canadian Firearms Safety Course to obtain the license for the purpose of purchasing a firearm. Reason-protection. Even though I had never been in a predicament where "if only I had a gun". Then I became fearless, and with that the desire to own a killing machine disappeared. The US is a country of constant fear which perpetuates the need to 'arm up'. M.Moore portrays that fact quite clearly in Bowling for Columbine.

 

Troy | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 10:57 pm | #

 

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

 

The need to arm oneself is a need created by a society of fear. If you fear then you justify the use of such things because of it.

 

Owning weapons isn't something that is needed in today's society. Plain and simple.

 

Matthew Good | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 10:42 pm | #

 

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

 

The pictures of the 3 weapons shown in the article are banned irregardless, due to a 1934 law, therefore they are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

Obviously no one thinks that people should have fully automatic weapons. That's not under debate. My only problem is the weak, and often wrong arguments people come up with to support gun control. I'm all for gun control, to a certain extent. Just don't try to sell something that isn't true.

 

Let's all first understand the meanings of the terms: Assault Weapon, Assault Rifle, Automatic, and Semi-Automatic. They are words, and the last time I checked words are used in the construction of a law. And that's what this article was about right Matt? The law?

 

Tom | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 10:15 pm | #

 

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

 

Hi Anonymous,

 

It'll be nice if there was a name I could address you by, but that's ok.

 

You're right in saying that there will not be a cultural implosion if all guns were banned. However, there is also such a thing called tyranny of the majority where the minority are oppressed through democracy. When we start giving up small pieces of freedom just because it doesn't affect us, future generations will have to face the consequences. I'm not just referring to guns here but to every we each hold dear (e.g. privacy of information, freedom to practice religion, being able to write to government members).

I do not own any guns nor do I plan on owning any.

 

Justin | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 10:12 pm | #

 

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

 

"England hasn't a gun problem. Their police don't even carry them. Interesting, isn't it."

 

I personally do not believe Canada has a gun problem either and semiautomatics are allowed here"

 

 

 

beats me... i guess this gets back to the bowling for columbine thing cyclical argument again... why doesnt canada, england, japan etc. have the same problem that the usa does?

 

maybe its just that some children (or countries) are responsible enough to be left home alone and others need a babysitter...

 

ben | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 10:01 pm | #

 

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

 

National Firearms Act is an American federal law passed in 1934 that mandates the registration of all Title II weapons - that is, all sound suppressors or 'silencers', all fully-automatic and burst-fire firearms, all rifles with a barrel length less than 16 inches (406 mm) (SBR) and shotguns with a barrel length less than 18 inches (457 mm) (SBS), shoulder fired weapons with an overall length less than 26 inches (660 mm), weapons classified as "Any Other Weapon" (AOW) and weapons classified as "destructive devices" (DD). For weapons with folding, collapsing or telescoping stocks, the overall length is measured with the stock fully extended.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

 

Since the early 1990s there has been much discussion in the United States of banning assault weapons. The discussion has been clouded by substantial ambiguity concerning the term "assault weapon", because of its similarity to the term "assault rifle" (which refers specifically to fully automatic weapons) and because the news media and gun ban lobby often use footage of machineguns firing in full-auto as the back-drop to the issue. Such weapons (fully automatic assault rifles) have been illegal in the United States, except by special permit, since 1934, yet discussion of a ban on "assault weapons" in the media often confuses the assault-style weapons actually under discussion with the fully automatic weapons which were already illegal. Many Americans, even many gun owners do not realize that the bans on "assault weapons" have nothing to do with automatic weapons or machine guns.

 

Classification of assault-style weapons, being based on mostly cosmetic characteristics, has proven extremely difficult since there is no functional difference between the types of firearms targeted for these bans and many very common hunting and target-shooting firearms. By any measure, caliber, rate of fire, accurate range, ease of use, magazine capacity, etc. these so-called "assault-style weapons" are identical in function to countless other firearms. Thus, the only way to specify a ban that only bans the intended firearms is to do so by cosmetics or model name/number, those being the only real differences. In response, when a weapon is banned as an assault weapon, the manufacturer simply makes the required cosmetic changes to its physical appearance which render it legal again. In response to that, some laws banning assault weapons have been subjected to several revisions since they were first passed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_on_assault_rifles

 

Tom | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 9:59 pm | #

 

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

 

Justin:

 

"I think this is one of the main reasons that people want to ban guns. They only see them as weapons for killing animals or killing humans (again, animals). However, there is also the hobby aspect of it within shooting competitions and collecting. "

 

 

do you not think that maybe the populatiry of the hobby aspect of gun ownership is exaggerated? im not going to try and draw more parallels to other things (cars, pit bulls etc.) but it seems like a copout argument for the validity of owning a weapon... i dont know the stats of gun owners who are strictly hobby collectors so i guess i cant say, but to overgeneralize, would there really be a cultural implosion if gun ownership were banned outright?

 

Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 9:57 pm | #

 

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

 

im very against this decision, but when reading the stats about whos contributing what i was pretty underwhelmed... gun rights groups have given 17 million to campaigns in 15 years?

that number seems a little unoffensive and low to me... i was expecting 10 billion or something...

 

i understand the point was comparing the money spent by gun groups to antigun groups, but 1 million a year to the usa government for 15 years doesnt convince me that donations are the reason they have such a powerful voice...

 

ben | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 9:47 pm | #

 

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

 

Matt-

 

"England hasn't a gun problem. Their police don't even carry them. Interesting, isn't it."

 

I personally do not believe Canada has a gun problem either and semiautomatics are allowed here.

 

Justin | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 9:38 pm | #

 

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

 

Hi Mary,

 

"If you think someone really needs a semiautomatic weapon in their home or for their amusement then you may want to seriously consider psychiatric help."

Thanks for pointing out my psychiatric problems, I'll look into that.

 

"Responsible people buy guns for two things: Protection, and hunting."

I think this is one of the main reasons that people want to ban guns. They only see them as weapons for killing animals or killing humans (again, animals). However, there is also the hobby aspect of it within shooting competitions and collecting.

 

Dave-

"I see now that I should just sell my car and drive my gun to school tomorrow, because my car clearly will serve me no other purpose than to kill people. I exaggerate, but I think you see my point."

 

Yep, I see what you're trying to say. However, a lot of things people enjoy do not have a purpose. E.g. playing hockey (Go Canada), watching cartoons, driving for fun, football, skydiving. The last 3 can also result in death.

 

Justin | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 9:33 pm | #

 

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

 

I too think Americans will see that and start migrating over here. Wich is why we need to install a better immigration policy. Make it harder for people to just move here and live.

 

Chris | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 9:21 pm | #

 

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

 

Matt,

 

So what you're saying is it's cool to own US made guns, and I'm wrong for using a graphic that the BBC made in an article about this very thing?

 

who's that directed to?

 

Joel | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 9:17 pm | #

 

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

 

Sorry that link I posted doesn't seem to work...

 

here's the raw html, its rather long to so I'm going to parse it. Remove the *'s and restore it to a single line.

 

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?*

tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=703*

&e=8&u=/ap/20040913/ap_on_go_co/*

assault_weapons

 

Joel | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 9:16 pm | #

 

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

 

Sorry that link I posted doesn't seem to work...

 

here's the raw html, its rather long to so I'm going to parse it. Remove the *'s and restore it to a single line.

 

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?*

tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=703*

&e=8&u=/ap/20040913/ap_on_go_co/*

assault_weapons

 

Joel | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 9:14 pm | #

 

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

 

AK's bought or in the US prior to the ban are legal, as are US made Uzi's, which there are. Not to mention 1,000 other weapons produced in the states.

 

So what you're saying is it's cool to own US made guns, and I'm wrong for using a graphic that the BBC made in an article about this very thing?

 

Matthew Good | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 9:14 pm | #

 

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

 

Nobody as seemed to mention this so far so lets get something very clear right now.

 

"The expiration of the ban means firearms like TEC-9s can now be legally bought. But some of the 19 weapons — foreign-made guns like the Russian- or Chinese-made AK-47 and the Israeli-manufactured Uzi — are still banned under a 1989 law prohibiting imports of specific automatic weapons."

 

Thats right people, tomorrow morning you still can't go out and pick yourself up 2 of the 3 guns Matt's showing on the post.

 

Quoted from Yahoo! News

 

On a lighter note I'd actually like to see a biathlon athlete try to handle 600 rounds a minute after skiing at top speed for a couple hours...

 

You need to consider that they only get to shoot 5 rounds at 5 targets so an AK47 might be fast, but I doubt it'd be accurate enough to be meaningful.

 

Joel | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 9:10 pm | #

 

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

 

The difference between fully and semi-automatic? Are you kidding me?

 

A burst of two to three rounds as opposed to an unlimited burst is a point of contention that requires further education to understand? Are you crazy?

 

Do you have any idea what a 7.62 N round can do to an animal, let alone a person? Please tell me why anyone needs a functioning AK?

 

Your grandpa left you a Thompson, fine, throw the firing pin in the trash. That said, defending owning a semi-automatic assault rifle is weak. The AR15 is, basically, an M16, which if you haven't noticed, are the military issued shoulder weapon of the US. Now, how in the hell does hunting deer come into it?

 

England hasn't a gun problem. Their police don't even carry them. Interesting, isn't it.

 

Matthew Good | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 9:08 pm | #

 

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

 

"Dave, Dave, Dave. The point is that everything you see has the potential to kill, in most cases, in more numbers than guns ever do."

 

You're absolutely right Tom.

 

I see now that I should just sell my car and drive my gun to school tomorrow, because my car clearly will serve me no other purpose than to kill people.

 

I exaggerate, but I think you see my point.

 

Dave | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 9:07 pm | #

 

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

 

It makes me wonder, if personal freedom is soo important, could i possibly privately own an apache helicopter or a nuclear missile or nuclear submarine?

I seriously think, like someone said, somethings are far too dangerous to be mass produced. and the deal with cars, if you ask any person the main purpose of a car is to TRANSPORT, the main purpose of a gun is to KILL (or harm)

 

osama | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 8:56 pm | #

 

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

 

I agree, Justin. I am quite tired of this narrow-minded stereotype that many people have concerning gun owners.

 

Trying to ban assault-rifles is like trying to treat the symptoms and not finding the cure. A good analogy would be the infamous War on Terrorism. Sure, we can try and stop the terrorists, but without tackling the root problem of terror, there will always be people killed by terrorism.

 

The law was quite often redundant, as well; it banned certain weapons because they looked 'evil' or dangerous. An example, the Franchi SPAS-12 shotgun. It operates like any other 12-gauge shotgun, but because it was manufactured to look menacing (it was originally intended to be a riot shotgun) so it was put on the list of banned firearms.

 

Most of the legal semi-autos functioned nearly the same as some of the guns on the list but weren't banned because they didn't look as dangerous.

 

Brad | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 8:55 pm | #

 

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

 

nobody should be permitted to own guns...of any kind, for any reason. guns have one purpose - death. the second amendment gives the right to bear arms to americans...yet, the men who drafted the document that gives us this right lived in a world far separated from our own. they lived in a world where defending themselves from corrupt government and marauding indians necessitated gun ownership. they needed guns so that the ordinary citizen might take the place of a reguar military, which the fledgling USA did not have. they also needed guns so that they might hunt for food, so they could feed their families and not starve to death.

 

well today, we have supermarkets, the injuns sell us gas and help us itch our gambling itch, the police and the military protect us, and the government is so firmly entrenched in power that nothing short of a biblical disaster is going to usurp it. we have no use for guns....

 

buy your food at the store...

 

mount something other than a moose's head over your mantle...

 

let the authorities defend you.

 

we have nothing to fear but ourselves...if we let ourselves.

 

end of discussion.

 

joe m | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 8:31 pm | #

 

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

 

I'm with Justin on this one.

 

Everyone else would do themselves a favour by learning what the term "semi-automatic" means.

 

Tom | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 8:22 pm | #

 

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

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/acc-inj.htm

 

Gun related deaths were 28,663 in the year 2000 (yeah I know they were different years but I believe the point is made irregardless).

 

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html

 

Responsilbe citizens DO own guns. I'm one of them. Also, let me be the first to tell you that there is no such thing as "fundamental freedoms." That is simply a human idea solidified by the willingness of the United States of America to uphold the constitution as the highest law in the land. WIthout the constitution you have nothing to guarantee you your freedoms which were agreed on upon the founding of the nation. There is no underlying moral or ethical force in the universe that prevents bad people from doing bad things. The freedom to practice religion is a freedom ONLY because it is in the constitution. The freedom to own guns is a freedom ONLY because it is guaranteed in the constitution (2nd ammend.). Do you understand? Alright Mark, I'm done with you...

 

Now it's your turn Dave. "The fact that there are people that equate the banning of a product designed only to kill with the banning of things like cars and hammers dumbfounds me." Dave, Dave, Dave. The point is that everything you see has the potential to kill, in most cases, in more numbers than guns ever do. The same logic applied to Mark's dynamite post applies to yours as well.

 

"Yes it's true that the colector's are missing out and can't cover their walls with every type of gun they want." Oh please Heather, cut the self-righteous crap. Don't assume that gun collectors eat, sleep, and shit while stroking their favourite gun.

 

The underlying problem of this whole argument is effectiveness. I'm talking about the effectiveness of a weapon to kill a large number of people, in a relatively short amount of time. Of course that gives birth to the argument of just what constitutes a weapon being too effective to be allowed in the hands of Average Joe. I think it's pretty safe to say that fully automatic weapons, though, have no place in the hands of private citizens.

 

Many shades of grey.

 

Tom | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 8:20 pm | #

 

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

 

What reason do we have to need more guns to begin with? As liberal as you may think you are, Justin, can you think of one positive thing that will come from someone using one of these guns? They are things specifically designed to kill. Responsible people buy guns for two things: Protection, and hunting. I should know, I live in the southern U.S. where just about everyone and their grandmother owns some sort of firearm. Here's the questions: who uses one of these guns for hunting? I'm going to tell you right now that the vast majority of hunters around here are just fine with something that they can shoot once and get it over with, and not blow the damn animal to kingdom come. And, Who in their right mind sleeps with an AK 47 tucked under their pillow in case a burgler comes along? If you think someone really needs a semiautomatic weapon in their home or for their amusement then you may want to seriously consider psychiatric help.

 

Mary | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 8:19 pm | #

 

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

 

Oh my God, where do I begin.

 

"It still amazes me how people can actually think that the right to own a gun is a legitimate constitutional right."

-Adam

 

Now I'm no American, but as far as I know that's what the whole 2nd ammendment is all about. I'll paraphrase it as "the right to bear arms." So technically Americans do have a legitimate constitutional right to own firearms. Whether or not the original intent of the ammendment still applies today is another debate.

 

These next few paragraphs refer entirely Mark's brilliant post.

 

"Gun collectors can also be book collectors." Are you kidding me? There's absolutely no point to this statement. Gun collectors collect guns because that's what they are interested in. Yes, they COULD stop collecting guns and switch to books, but I don't think you'd want to tell them what they can and can't do. Weak argument, try again.

 

"hunters- have rifles. how bad of a hunter do you have to be to need a semi-automatic rifle? not very sporting my friend." You obviously do not understand the term "semi-automatic." Semi-automatic is simply a marketing term for gun manufacturers. A more fitting term would be "self-reloading," because that is all "semi-automatic" weapons do. They reload themselves. If you continuously apply pressure on the trigger of a semi-automatic weapon you will fire one, and only one, round. Your skills as a hunter have nothing to do with whether your weapon is of the manual-repeating, self-repeating/semi-automatic, or fully automatic type. Whether or not you want to spoil your meat, though, is. When it comes to hunting, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

"recreational shooters- like .....robbers?" Uhhh how about like .... me? I personally enjoy going to the firing range of a gun club. I also know many people who have fun shooting clay pigeons. This statement tries to be sarcastic, but it's just stupid. It's funny how your arguments get successively weaker. Did you plan on that or was it just coincidence?

 

"olympic athletes.- does shooting really need to be an "olympic sport"?" This one's a real gem. No, shooting does not need to be an Olympic sport Mark. In fact, there doesn't REALLY need to be the Olympics. This is a profoundly weak attempt to attack something someone said just because you don't agree with the overall point of their post. Jesus, put a little more effort into it.

 

"whatever happened to the mindset that some things are just too dangerous to be produced and made readily available to the public?" Yes Mark, guns DO kill people. But I'm pretty damn sure that automobiles kill WAY more people in the US (and any other country that has automobiles) than guns do in any given year. The CDC's National Center for Health Statistics cites 42,443 deaths related to automobiles (in the US) in the year 2001. By your own logic cars should be illegal. Or at least heavily controlled.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/acc-inj

 

Tom | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 8:19 pm | #

 

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

 

Matt-

 

You're not watching the wrong olympics. Fully automatic guns are illegal in Canada and the US.

 

Justin

 

Justin | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 7:54 pm | #

 

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

 

Mark-

 

I respect your opinion and can see that I won't be able to change your position on guns.

 

"dude, having a gun handed down by your father from the war and having it sit on the wall is vastly different from going shopping for a Colt AR15. "

I don't see how they're different. Both can be used as a collection piece and both can be used to kill people. The gun used in WWII was the M1. the M1 and AR15 are both semiautomatic. Furthermore, people still shop for M1s and some are still in service. A gun handed down from WWII is not that different from the AR15.

 

 

I watched Bowling for Columbine a while back. It stated that Canada and the US had the same amount of guns (please correct me if I'm mistaken) but that gun crimes were much lower in Canada. Also, it showed how this might have been caused by social differences. Before watching this movie, i thought that the saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" was stupid. However, after this movie and after recent events (e.g. 9/11), I believe this phrase is true. The terrorists in 9/11 did not use guns, nor did they use "tactical" knives, they used planes to kill people. To take over the planes, they used boxcutters.

 

Justin

 

Justin | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 7:52 pm | #

 

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

 

I had no idea there was an Olympic event in which a weapon that can discharge 600 rounds a minute is used. I must be watching the wrong Olympics.

 

Do they have a special version of the games for rednecks, or am I simply missing something?

 

Matthew Good | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 7:50 pm | #

 

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

 

Justin,

 

let me then rephrase "a truly responsible citizen does not actively seek out weapons." dude, having a gun handed down by your father from the war and having it sit on the wall is vastly different from going shopping for a Colt AR15.

 

"What makes a bolt action rifle more dangerous than a semi automatic rifle? It will take more time to shoot but if the person has the intention to kill, that means that he'll only be able to kill 5 people instead of 10. "

 

EXACTLY. Giving the law enforcement agencies mroe time to respond, less threat to respond to, and five less dead people. Then, we could have the discussion about how we dont need bolt action rifles either, and *gasp* be one step closer to not having guns at all.

 

sweet.

 

-M

 

mark | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 7:28 pm | #

 

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

 

Mark-

What makes a bolt action rifle more dangerous than a semi automatic rifle? It will take more time to shoot but if the person has the intention to kill, that means that he'll only be able to kill 5 people instead of 10. Now you're probably thinking, "5 people will be saved", but the point is people will still die. Of course, that person could probably kill more effectively by building a bomb out of items lying around the house. I believe that instead of banning guns, we should fix the root of the problems which lead to violence, like poverty and drug addiction.

 

"Truly responsible citizens DONT own guns."

 

I believe that is the same type of generalization that leads to racial profiling at the airport. If a person owns the gun his father had in WWII, does that make him/her irresponsible?

 

Dave-

"Cars also happen to be a very convenient and widespread means of transportation."

Robbers also use cars to smash into stores. The point I was trying to make is that the person's intentions are more important than the objects used.

 

"Guns are used ONLY to harm or kill other living things, including people. And, I don't know a single person who would use an Uzi or an AK-47 to hunt with."

Guns are not only used to harm or kill living things. As I said earliar, look at the olympics. Following your logic, we should also ban archery and javelin as well because they were designed to kill. Also, we would have to ban the yo-yo because that was designed as a weapon :angry: .

I don't know anyone who would hunt with an AK-47 as well, but that doesn't mean it should be banned.

 

Heather-

Automatic weapons are not allowed. The ban is about semiautomatic rifles. The picture in the blog is misleading. Yes, a fully automatic UZI (and its variants) will fire up to 900 rounds/min. But a semiautomatic one fires just as fast as a handgun.

 

I am a Canadian and I do not any guns. I'm just a liberal that believes in freedom.

 

Justin

 

Justin | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 7:14 pm | #

 

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

 

the assualt weapon ban is supported by virtually all law enforcement organizations, 3/4 of the american public and even 2/3 of gun owners.

 

crime is largely down, but there aren't any conclusive studies that indicate that the assualt rifle ban is responsible for that, or if it's even had any real effect on crime whatsoever.

 

the bottom line is, though, many democrats are convinced that supporting gun control has cost them seats. the NRA and it's lobbyists simply hold too much power.

 

jay | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 6:44 pm | #

 

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

 

I find it very ironic that a country that is so worried about terroist's is not worried about mass amounts of people that are now able to down their homes with a wide varity of automatic rifles. Yes it's true that the colector's are missing out and can't cover their walls with every type of gun they want. But to lesen the amount of guns that are legally aloud in people's homes. Will lessen the chance that they will make it into the hands of some one that would rather use them for harm then decoration. I don't see the point in legalizing automatic weapons that will inevitability lead to more blood shed. No one will ever benifit from this move except for the gun merchants who seem to turn off their consciouses with each sale. Before you feel bad for the people who seem to have lost their constitutional right's. Think about the people at the other end of the gun that will never be the same after someone makes the decision to pull the trigger of the gun that the government brought back in the country for sale.

 

Heather Blakely | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 5:43 pm | #

 

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

 

- "Cars kill many people"

Cars also happen to be a very convenient and widespread means of transportation.

 

- "hammers... can break someone's skull."

Hammers also have a very important role in construction.

 

- "if someone uses guns to harm another"

Guns are used ONLY to harm or kill other living things, including people. And, I don't know a single person who would use an Uzi or an AK-47 to hunt with.

 

The fact that there are people that equate the banning of a product designed only to kill with the banning of things like cars and hammers dumbfounds me.

 

Dave | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 5:32 pm | #

 

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

 

Justin,

 

gun collectors- can also be book collectors.

hunters- have rifles. how bad of a hunter do you have to be to need a semi-automatic rifle? not very sporting my friend.

recreational shooters- like .....robbers?

olympic athletes.- does shooting really need to be an "olympic sport"?

 

whatever happened to the mindset that some things are just too dangerous to be produced and made readily available to the public? people with guns DO kill people, and people with bigger guns kill even more people.

 

"Gay people should have the same rights as straight people, everyone should be able to practice the religion of their choice, and responsible citizens should have the right to own guns."

 

The rights of gay people have nothing to do with it, nor do the religious rights havof others. Those are fundamental freedoms. Being allowed to own and collect dangerous weapons shouldnt. Truly responsible citizens DONT own guns.

 

-M

 

mark | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 5:26 pm | #

 

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

 

These "assault weapons" are not fully automatic rifles. Just because they are uzi's does not mean they will be used to murder people in malls. The ban was for semi-automatic rifles and I do not see a reason why they should be banned. I'm a liberal thinker so I believe that individual freedom is paramount. Gay people should have the same rights as straight people, everyone should be able to practice the religion of their choice, and responsible citizens should have the right to own guns. However, if someone uses guns to harm another, I believe they should be punished. Punish criminals, do not ban the objects they use.

 

Before banning these "assault weapons", maybe we should think about banning cars. Cars kill many people and pollute the environment. Also, we should ban hammers because they can break someone's skull.

 

People who use guns to kill should be in jail. However, if you ban all semi-automatic rifles, you are taking away the rights of gun collectors, hunters, recreational shooters, and olympic athletes.

 

Justin | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 4:49 pm | #

 

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

 

It still amazes me how people can actually think that the right to own a gun is a legitimate constitutional right.

 

I was reading up on this in the New York Times...the ban on assault rifles was full of loopholes, which was one of the main reasons why it wasn't renewed, apparently. You can see how shallow those people are, they think that because a law is full of loopholes, that it should should expire and let nothing but a large, gaping hole of civil insecurity take over.

 

Adam | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 4:20 pm | #

 

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

 

Ugh. That's the only way to describe my feelings towards the politicians who let this thing expire and not renew it.

 

I have no problems with people owning handguns for protection of them and/or their family. Growing up in a bad neighborhood, I can totally understand and relate.

 

But, for God's sake, there is absolutely no reason to own weapons like Uzi's.

 

Bob | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 4:16 pm | #

 

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

 

This scares me a lot too. If Bush gets re-elected, I'm going to have to make a decision about continuing my post-secondary education here in the US.

 

Steve | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 4:07 pm | #

 

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

 

Morons. I predict mass immigration into Canada by former Americans.

 

Anton | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 4:06 pm | #

 

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

 

That is very frightening...I'm very happy to live in Canada. Let us hope something this fatally foolish will never invade our public consiousness...

 

Andrew | Email | Homepage | 09.13.04 - 3:51 pm | #

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm that Andrew, first one to respond. I wonder who that second guy is?

Edited by miscellaneous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some good points in there, but also a few that make no sense...or are lies outright. That might be my problem, really...I see the issue from the standpoint of the opposition too, so I can never really make a solid statement. Ah well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.