Home of the Free

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: Home of the Free
RentPeople Infiltrator Member # 2669	written Thursday, May 15 2003 14:49 Profile Homepage #0 GOP Will Let Gun Ban Expire House Won't Act on Assault Weapons The Republican-controlled House will not renew the federal ban on Uzis and other semiautomatic weapons, a key leader said yesterday, dealing a significant blow to the campaign to clamp down on gun sales nationwide. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said most House members are willing to let the ban expire next year. "The votes in the House are not there" to continue the ban, he told reporters. His spokesman, Stuart Roy, said, "We have no intention of bringing it up" for a vote. As majority leader, DeLay decides which bills are voted on in the House. Because the 1994 assault weapons ban expires next year, the House and Senate must pass legislation to renew it by Sept. 13, 2004. If Congress does not act, the AK-47 and 18 other types of semiautomatic weapons that were outlawed a decade ago by President Clinton and a Democratic-controlled Congress would be legal again, handing a major victory to the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups. Past votes and an NRA survey of lawmakers before the 2002 elections suggest that a majority of House members oppose renewing the ban, GOP officials said. But several Republicans, who requested anonymity, said some pro-gun GOP leaders worry that if members are forced to into a roll call vote, they might switch under pressure from gun control advocates. President Bush, whose support of the assault weapons ban dates to his 2000 campaign, has drawn rebukes from NRA members and some GOP lawmakers. But several Republicans close to the White House said Bush has no plans to lobby lawmakers aggressively to extend the ban. That would allow him to officially oppose the NRA without completely turning against the powerful gun lobby by fighting to maintain a ban on semiautomatic weapons. "The White House seems to think that the bill will never reach the President's desk," said a recent alert sent to members of the Gun Owners of America, a gun rights group with close ties to Republicans. "At least that is what top officials are counting on. In pursuing this strategy, they are trying to please both sides and are playing a very dangerous game." Congressional Republicans said Congress will renew the ban only if Bush publicly and firmly insists. "If the president demands we pass it, that would change the dynamics considerably," a House GOP leadership aide said. "The White House does not want us" to vote. In a letter to Bush, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) said: "It is now time for us to stand up against the unconstitutional gun-grabbing and help our nation in this time of great need by allowing law-abiding citizens to use the weapon of their choice." It is unclear how much pressure Bush and congressional Republicans will be under to bring up the volatile gun issue, especially in the 2004 election year. While many leading Senate and House Democrats are pushing legislation to renew the ban, the issue is not sharply partisan. Many rural and southern Democrats, including a few who voted for the ban in 1994, oppose its renewal and reflect a notable shift in the politics of guns over the past decade. An aide to a Senate Democrat who voted for the ban in 1994 and faces reelection next year said many Democrats "hope it never comes up." The reason for the turnabout is rooted, in part, in the fallout of the 1994 vote and Vice President Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign loss. In 1994, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate narrowly passed the ban on the sale and possession of 19 semiautomatic rapid-fire guns and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds. Proponents of the ban said those weapons and copycat versions that do not fall under the ban are frequently used in violent crimes, including the deaths of scores of law enforcement officials. Opponents said the ban violates the constitutional right to bear arms. In May 1994, the Democratic-controlled House passed the Clinton-backed gun ban by two votes. A few months later, House Speaker Thomas Foley (Wash.), Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks (Tex.) and several other Democrats who supported the ban were voted out of office after the NRA and other gun activists targeted them in a political campaign. The NRA's power ebbed and flowed throughout the rest of the 1990s, hitting a high-water mark after Gore's narrow loss in 2000. Gore lost gun rights bastions such as Arkansas, West Virginia and his home state of Tennessee, in part, some Democratic analysts believe, because he was seen as hostile to gun owners. In this year's first debate among Democratic presidential hopefuls, only Al Sharpton vigorously endorsed the registration and licensing of handguns. Most congressional Democratic leaders and presidential candidates strongly support the assault weapons ban and appear ready to wage a public fight over an issue they believe may pack a political punch with independents and women, in particular. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently introduced legislation that would extend the Clinton gun ban with only minor modifications. If the House rejects the renewal, however, Senate action will not matter. In the House, Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced a tougher bill last week that would ban a larger number of guns. "I don't want to put my members in any trouble. But if we actually face this, the American people [will support] keeping assault weapons from going back on the street," McCarthy said. © 2003 The Washington Post Company Heh. Bwahahaha. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Happiness is a warm gun. -------------------- ... Posts: 647 \| Registered: Wednesday, February 19 2003 08:00
Sir Motrax of Exile Senile Reptile Member # 547	written Thursday, May 15 2003 14:58 Profile #1 Huh. I'll have to opt for the Democrat's views on this topic. Bringing uzis into the streets is not something that should be achieved. It's pretty disgusting that such a bill should fade away from existence. EDIT: Speling an gramre ersz mkae not koharnt post. [ Thursday, May 15, 2003 15:00: Message edited by: Sir Motrax of Exile ] -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1614 \| Registered: Wednesday, January 23 2002 08:00
Vladimir Scorpius SCORPIUS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING!!! Member # 314	written Thursday, May 15 2003 14:59 Profile Homepage #2 omg the american govurnment is planning to kill thousands of its citizenz -------------------- CLICK HERE IF YOU LOVE JESUS ADoS is like a magical punching bag that swings into your fist even when you're not trying to hit it. -Djur Posts: 554 \| Registered: Sunday, November 25 2001 08:00
RentPeople Infiltrator Member # 2669	written Thursday, May 15 2003 15:36 Profile Homepage #3 Actually, relations with Canada haven't been this tense since the war of 1812. -------------------- ... Posts: 647 \| Registered: Wednesday, February 19 2003 08:00
The Abridged Series Guardian Member # 2080	written Thursday, May 15 2003 18:20 Profile #4 quote: Originally posted by Sir Motrax of Exile: [QB]Huh. I'll have to opt for the Democrat's views on this topic. Bringing uzis into the streets is not something that should be achieved. It's pretty disgusting that such a bill should fade away from existence. Oh wow, we're really gonna die now. The criminals will be able to display their uzis which used to just hide in their jackets. Let's revive that bill and while we're at, let's raid the homes of law-obeying citizens and take all of their guns away. And why not go a step further and take away their knives and swords. Then criminals can continue buying guns off of the street and kill the completely unarmed citizens. Wouldn't that be a nice safe America? Of course not. Israel have no crime (other than suicide bombers), and the reason for that is most of the people there are packin heat and will bust a cap in you if you steal somethin. So I say take away our guns and then see how bad crime really gets. If you need me, I'll be practicing with my sword in case the guns do get taken away. That away, at the very least I'll be able to stop some punk with a switchblade wants my money. Posts: 1918 \| Registered: Sunday, October 13 2002 07:00
VCH Shaper Member # 247	written Thursday, May 15 2003 18:30 Profile Homepage #5 quote: Actually, relations with Canada haven't been this tense since the war of 1812. by Rentboy Good I'd like to see a wall put up. As for tense relations they have always been there most people in Canada dispise the Americans in one way or another and why not? -------------------- VCH VCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop attacking Cloutier!! Posts: 2395 \| Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00
OmegaMan Apprentice Member # 2421	written Thursday, May 15 2003 19:17 Profile #6 Even if the bill is passed and I hope that it is not, it will do nothing to stop the criminals from using them, they are readily available throu the black market or by smuggling them in to the US from other countries. Before you try and take away our guns (I mean law abiding, gun owing Americans) you really should take a look at the other countries that outlawed guns such as England and look at their crime levels and then ask yourselves, if their citizens had the right and the ability to defend themselves would their crime levels be so high?? I think not. You can criticize all that you want to, I am a proud member of the NRA as well as an avid hunter and target shooter, (Oh no I said I am a hunter. Here comes PETA to scream at me. Haa Haa Haa) and I know that the guns are not the problem it is the people using them that is the problem. I have been shooting sense I was 5 years old and in the 19 years that I have been shooting I learned how to properly handle gun and how to respect it. So maybe instead of outlawing the guns maybe they should outlaw stupid people. But in the words of a great man "You will have to pry my guns from my cold dead hands" and that man was Charlton Heston. Former president of the NRA and a great actor as well. Posts: 11 \| Registered: Sunday, December 29 2002 08:00
La Renaissance ~~Triad Mage~~ ~~Banned~~ Veteran Member # 165	written Thursday, May 15 2003 19:29 Profile Homepage #7 quote: Originally posted by OmegaMan: Even if the bill is passed and I hope that it is not, it will do nothing to stop the criminals from using them, they are readily available throu the black market or by smuggling them in to the US from other countries. Before you try and take away our guns (I mean law abiding, gun owing Americans) you really should take a look at the other countries that outlawed guns such as England and look at their crime levels and then ask yourselves, if their citizens had the right and the ability to defend themselves would their crime levels be so high?? I think not. The crime levels of countries such as England and Australia who have recently banned most guns has fallen dramatically. Note also that Australia at the very least only bans those weapons whose sole utility is in hunting the most dangerous game; those used in hunting are still, for the most part, legal. [quote] You can criticize all that you want to, I am a proud member of the NRA as well as an avid hunter and target shooter, (Oh no I said I am a hunter. Here comes PETA to scream at me. Haa Haa Haa) [Note that the PETA is not well-loved here.] quote: and I know that the guns are not the problem it is the people using them that is the problem. I have been shooting sense I was 5 years old and in the 19 years that I have been shooting I learned how to properly handle gun and how to respect it. Do you stand against licensing of firearms, then, and tougher control of guns? It's my personal opinion that only those who know how to responsibly use firearms should be allowed to do so. That way those who can responsibly use firearms are able to, and those who cannot are not. quote: So maybe instead of outlawing the guns maybe they should outlaw stupid people. But in the words of a great man "You will have to pry my guns from my cold dead hands" and that man was Charlton Heston. Former president of the NRA and a great actor as well. I personally don't find Charlton Heston such a great guy, but eh. You know, what's the problem with banning assault rifles? Do you really need a gun with the ability to pierce military-grade personnel armor and fire off a thirty-magazine in bursts of three in fifteen seconds to hunt big game, let alone small game? In the rare instance that you are in a situation wherein that kind of firepower is necessary to stop a hostile person -- and this happens maybe once in ten lifetimes -- that firepower in the hands of a non-professional -- which you and the vast majority of the American population are -- is not only not effective but thoroughly lethal to the people you are trying to protect. If you are attacked by an uzi-wielding maniac -- as the NRA would have you believe happens every day, and as would certainly be more common if they had their way in the way of gun control laws -- chances are your best bet is to lay down, be compliant with their wishes, and pray to whatever entity you believe in that the police arrive quickly. If you had an uzi yourself, at best you would kill him and yourself, and at worst you'd mow down more of the crowd than he possibly could alone and still fail to stop him before he fatally shot you. Moral of story: The crazed gunman often knows what he's doing. The police always know what they're doing. You do not know what you're doing. There is no reason for you to own an assault rifle. -------------------- desperance -- je me souviens arena -- et je me souviens de vous Posts: 2449 \| Registered: Monday, October 15 2001 07:00
La Renaissance ~~Triad Mage~~ ~~Banned~~ Veteran Member # 165	written Thursday, May 15 2003 19:34 Profile Homepage #8 NOTE FOR POSTERITY: Something reeks in the state of Sequoyah when I find myself agreeing with Motrax and the point isn't "naziism is wrong". quote: Originally posted by Lone Flame: Let's revive that bill and while we're at, let's raid the homes of law-obeying citizens and take all of their guns away. And why not go a step further and take away their knives and swords. Then criminals can continue buying guns off of the street and kill the completely unarmed citizens. Wouldn't that be a nice safe America? "Knives and swords"? The average man hasn't defended himself with a sword since the 1600s, and still doesn't. Most people who have swords are either overweight fanboys of some persuasion or another who would likely chop their arms off in a combat situation, or people for whom swordfighting is an unhealthy fixation and who will likely find themselves either using that fixation much less than they'd think they'd need to -- or in jail. Of course not. Israel have no crime (other than suicide bombers), and the reason for that is most of the people there are packin heat and will bust a cap in you if you steal somethin. Israel has no crime? Shows where you're getting your statistics from. [Hint: It has a nice view of his prostate gland.] [ Thursday, May 15, 2003 19:35: Message edited by: el presidente ] -------------------- desperance -- je me souviens arena -- et je me souviens de vous Posts: 2449 \| Registered: Monday, October 15 2001 07:00
OmegaMan Apprentice Member # 2421	written Thursday, May 15 2003 20:18 Profile #9 quote: Originally posted by el presidente Moral of story: The crazed gunman often knows what he's doing. The police always know what they're doing. You do not know what you're doing. There is no reason for you to own an assault rifle. Actually being a former member of the Armed Forces I spent 4 years in the National Guard I do know what I am doing. quote: Do you stand against licensing of firearms, then, and tougher control of guns? It's my personal opinion that only those who know how to responsibly use firearms should be allowed to do so. That way those who can responsibly use firearms are able to, and those who cannot are not. I do not support tougher control of guns I support stricter penalties for crimes involving a gun, and as for licensing of firearmes. What will that do? Criminals will hardly be affected by licenses, they get them illegal anyway. If properly enforced the gun laws that we have on the books now would be very effective. Posts: 11 \| Registered: Sunday, December 29 2002 08:00
NaCN Agent Member # 1359	written Thursday, May 15 2003 20:41 Profile #10 quote: Originally posted by el presidente: Moral of story: The crazed gunman often knows what he's doing. The police always know what they're doing. You do not know what you're doing. There is no reason for you to own an assault rifle. Have you ever considered *learning* what you are doing? -------------------- 'The term Anarchy got bandied about a lot in the early 80's, perhaps having some amount of political or social meaning attached at the outset, but by the first couple of years, it simply became a synonym for "blow ** up".' --textfiles.com Posts: 1277 \| Registered: Monday, June 24 2002 07:00**
Saunders ~~La Canaliste~~ DELETED Member # 21	written Thursday, May 15 2003 23:22 Profile #11 Okay, I am going slightly mad. I thought this was a spoof article, because I misread (R-Tex) as (T-Rex). On rereading, I think I got it right. The man maybe is an agressive dinosaur. -------------------- KazeArctica: Oh yes. KazeArctica: Oh YES Posts: 93 \| Registered: Sunday, September 30 2001 22:00
X Shaper Member # 496	written Friday, May 16 2003 06:56 Profile #12 I should point out that in UK, gun-related murders are 1/200th of those on the US - or 1/40th, adjusted for population. I think only about 400-odd people were murdered by any means in the entire country despite the 'English genleman' being long dead. Here even possesion of knives over 4" long is banned and they're talking about adding BB and imitation guns to the list! I thought the lower murder rate was just down to the reduced lethality of weapons available - more people get stabbed, bludgeoned and booted over here (re. the sword comment above, machetes are actually very popular here) than in the US, it's just they more rarely die of it. Then I saw Michael Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine' and his citing Canada as armed to the teeth too (Switerland too - civil defence requires an assault rifle in every home) and came the surprising conclusion tht guns weren't really the main issue. If you take away virtally any means to survive except crime (i.e. no welfare, discrimination in education and employment, etc) and have such OTT property laws (allowing lethal force even against trespassers!!!) that criminals have to arm themselves to survive by robbery, then a lot more killings are inevitable. Guns make it easy, but stabbings or beatings don't make it impossible, believe me! Until welfare and opportunity issues are addressed, the US is stuck with a high murder rate regardless of gun control issues. The psychology of the gun-owner needs addressing too. I get this impression guns are seen as some sort of frontier symbol of freedom and unless that's addressed (e.g. not wildly approprite to modern urban enviromnments), the current 'dialogue of the deaf' will continue. (I do think there's a 'penis extension' lement to this to, acquiring a gun being as much an initiation into manhood as acquiring a driving licence - but that's another story....) Part of this is commendably down to 18th century liberal opposition to a standing army in peacetime as tyrannous (and a waste of tax-payers money), but I regret some of it is also down to the former Southern plantocracy's fear of servile insurrection. One thing Moore said (so take it the a pinch of salt) is that the NRA had no objection to gun control for former slaves when it was founded, just Southern Whites. So both in terms of stereotypes of Uzi-totin' Black gangstas and the lack of opportunity that forces them into crime, the US still hasn't come to terms with its heritage of slavery. No doubt this whole debate will generate a lot more heat than light. This is just my two pennies-worth. Abortion or capital punishment next anyone? Posts: 2333 \| Registered: Monday, January 7 2002 08:00
Jigga Infiltrator Member # 1823	written Friday, May 16 2003 08:24 Profile Homepage #13 quote: Originally posted by OmegaMan: quote: Originally posted by el presidente Moral of story: The crazed gunman often knows what he's doing. The police always know what they're doing. You do not know what you're doing. There is no reason for you to own an assault rifle. Actually being a former member of the Armed Forces I spent 4 years in the National Guard I do know what I am doing. Maybe you do. Others however do not. And when you say you know what you are doing, what exactly does this mean? You know how to shoot somebody well? quote: Do you stand against licensing of firearms, then, and tougher control of guns? It's my personal opinion that only those who know how to responsibly use firearms should be allowed to do so. That way those who can responsibly use firearms are able to, and those who cannot are not. I do not support tougher control of guns I support stricter penalties for crimes involving a gun, and as for licensing of firearmes. What will that do? Criminals will hardly be affected by licenses, they get them illegal anyway. If properly enforced the gun laws that we have on the books now would be very effective. You appear to have used two opposite logics here. Firstly, you say that better enforcement/tougher sentances etc. of gun control will not affect criminals, as they don't pay attention to the law anyway. Then you say that tougher sentances/ more enforcement for gun related crime should be increased, and that this would affect these crimes. Surely by the logic of your first arguement, this would have no effect, as criminals would not pay attention to these anyway. -------------------- Riot Shields Voodoo Economics It's just business Cattle prods And the IMF I trust I can rely on your vote Posts: 530 \| Registered: Sunday, September 1 2002 07:00
OmegaMan Apprentice Member # 2421	written Friday, May 16 2003 10:08 Profile #14 quote: Originally posted by Jigga You appear to have used two opposite logics here. Firstly, you say that better enforcement/tougher sentances etc. of gun control will not affect criminals, as they don't pay attention to the law anyway. Then you say that tougher sentances/ more enforcement for gun related crime should be increased, and that this would affect these crimes. Surely by the logic of your first arguement, this would have no effect, as criminals would not pay attention to these anyway. I never said that better enforcment and tougher sentances will not affect criminals. I said I do not support tougher gun control and licensing of firearmes. Those will not affect the criminals. The only people that get licensed are the law abiding gun owners the criminals will not go and get a licensed, and tougher gun control will just make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase a firearm not the criminals. I do support better enforcement and stricter penalties. These will affect the criminals by locking them up and keeping them from committing another crime, and the stricter penalties will keep them locked up a lot longer. quote: Actually being a former member of the Armed Forces I spent 4 years in the National Guard I do know what I am doing. Maybe you do. Others however do not. And when you say you know what you are doing, what exactly does this mean? You know how to shoot somebody well? What it means is I know the proper use of a gun I know how to handle it and how not to handle it. When to use it and when not to use it. And as for others, maybe if people where not so close minded and learned how to properly use and handle a firearm then their opinion might would go from, guns are bad, to if used properly a gun can be a very safe thing and have it's uses. Posts: 11 \| Registered: Sunday, December 29 2002 08:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Friday, May 16 2003 10:13 Profile Homepage #15 Many criminals are not, in fact, hardened killers who go out and buy guns to go on killing sprees. It's quite easy to get angry, grab a gun you have, and go blow someone away. If it were harder to get a gun, such "casual" murders would be far less common. And while you may be able to protect yourself with a gun, your are in the vast minority of gun-owners. ?Alorael, who also cannot see how a semiautomatic weapon is good protection against one attacker. It seems far better designed to be that attacker and try to eliminate dozens of victims. If you do know how to use a gun well, you won't need a rapid spray of bullets to deal with an assailant. Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Morgan Shaper Member # 22	written Friday, May 16 2003 10:24 Profile #16 Ah, guns. There's nothing that says freedom like the freedom to blow somebody's brains out. Gun crime is, unfortunately, on the rise in Britain. Only a couple of months ago, two teenage girls were shot dead in gang-related shooting. That kind of thing might be commonplace in America - I don't know, I've never been. I support the banning of guns. However, you have to temper that with strict controls, and that really doesn't happen. I don't know how to do that, but I'm sure that the first step for America is getting rid of guns - most guns end up on the street because they are stolen from someone's home. -------------------- KazeArctica: "Imagine...wangs everywhere...and tentacles. Nothing but wangs and tentacles! And no pants!" Posts: 2862 \| Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00
Rantallion This Side Towards Enemy Member # 147	written Friday, May 16 2003 13:00 Profile #17 I'm all in favour of guns. Rifles, shotguns and maybe pistols if you do target-shooting. If you pass a markmanship test. And have a reason to use the gun. And keep it unloaded in a gun cabinet. It's what my family's always done. Gun control won't stop career criminals getting guns. But it might stop opportunistic gun crime, it'd certainly reduce high school shootings and you can be absolutely certain it would stop accidental fatalities. I don't care how many years you spent in the military. Not every gunowner has that experience. And if they panic, they'll either get themselves shot or shoot the very people they're trying to protect. Gun control won't stop gun crime, but it's a useful safeguard. There is a right to self-defence, but it's a right to proportionate self defence. Assualt rifles kill people. When freedoms have the power to kill, you have to question whether those freedoms are worth having. Posts: 1000 \| Registered: Thursday, October 11 2001 07:00
La Renaissance ~~Triad Mage~~ ~~Banned~~ Veteran Member # 165	written Friday, May 16 2003 13:31 Profile Homepage #18 quote: Originally posted by OmegaMan: quote: Originally posted by el presidente Moral of story: The crazed gunman often knows what he's doing. The police always know what they're doing. You do not know what you're doing. There is no reason for you to own an assault rifle. Actually being a former member of the Armed Forces I spent 4 years in the National Guard I do know what I am doing. Are you currently in the National Guard? Does your pay depend on you knowing how to operate an assault rifle? If not, why do you presume you are better-equipped to deal with a homicidal maniac than someone who is both? quote: Do you stand against licensing of firearms, then, and tougher control of guns? It's my personal opinion that only those who know how to responsibly use firearms should be allowed to do so. That way those who can responsibly use firearms are able to, and those who cannot are not. I do not support tougher control of guns I support stricter penalties for crimes involving a gun, and as for licensing of firearmes. What will that do? Criminals will hardly be affected by licenses, they get them illegal anyway. If properly enforced the gun laws that we have on the books now would be very effective. Criminals will acquire and use guns no matter what we do. The only thing we can hope to do is to make sure only those good, upstanding citizens who know how to use them get guns, so they don't end up killing other good, upstanding citizens when using them. This is the problem with firearms, which I like to call Dirty Harry Syndrome: Basically, it's an all-too-common mentality to think that picking up a gun automatically makes you a certified expert in using it, and will shoot accordingly. They are a danger to themselves and others. No legislature -- at least none directly concerning guns -- will permanently solve gun crime, but increased control will mitigate damage from people with good intentions. [ Friday, May 16, 2003 13:32: Message edited by: el presidente ] -------------------- desperance -- je me souviens arena -- et je me souviens de vous Posts: 2449 \| Registered: Monday, October 15 2001 07:00
La Renaissance ~~Triad Mage~~ ~~Banned~~ Veteran Member # 165	written Friday, May 16 2003 13:37 Profile Homepage #19 quote: Originally posted by OmegaMan: quote: Originally posted by Jigga You appear to have used two opposite logics here. Firstly, you say that better enforcement/tougher sentances etc. of gun control will not affect criminals, as they don't pay attention to the law anyway. Then you say that tougher sentances/ more enforcement for gun related crime should be increased, and that this would affect these crimes. Surely by the logic of your first arguement, this would have no effect, as criminals would not pay attention to these anyway. I never said that better enforcment and tougher sentances will not affect criminals. I said I do not support tougher gun control and licensing of firearmes. Those will not affect the criminals. The only people that get licensed are the law abiding gun owners the criminals will not go and get a licensed, and tougher gun control will just make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase a firearm not the criminals. I do support better enforcement and stricter penalties. These will affect the criminals by locking them up and keeping them from committing another crime, and the stricter penalties will keep them locked up a lot longer. Deterrent is a bad way to stop crime! In many cases, gun murders are done in hot blood, where logic and reason are at best distant acquaintances. The penalty for first-degree manslaughter is already either life or death, and it's committed pretty frequently regardless. The best way to prevent crime is to make sure that the people getting guns both know how to use them and intend to use them only for self-defense, and only as a last resort. quote: Actually being a former member of the Armed Forces I spent 4 years in the National Guard I do know what I am doing. Maybe you do. Others however do not. And when you say you know what you are doing, what exactly does this mean? You know how to shoot somebody well? What it means is I know the proper use of a gun I know how to handle it and how not to handle it. When to use it and when not to use it. And as for others, maybe if people where not so close minded and learned how to properly use and handle a firearm then their opinion might would go from, guns are bad, to if used properly a gun can be a very safe thing and have it's uses. I, personally, know how to use a firearm. I, personally, would not carry or use one, as I would not want to be caught in a situation where I would require cool, calm nerves in a panic situation. I don't think guns are bad; I merely think that it should be necessary to learn how to properly use and handle a firearm before it can be legally bought, kept, or used. I don't stand for the outright banning of guns, but I do stand for controls that make sure that Joe Q. Public won't be putting my life -- and the lives of those I care about -- in danger by having one unless he knows what he's doing with it. [ Friday, May 16, 2003 13:38: Message edited by: el presidente ] -------------------- desperance -- je me souviens arena -- et je me souviens de vous Posts: 2449 \| Registered: Monday, October 15 2001 07:00
y0d1n2a3 Shock Trooper Member # 48	written Friday, May 16 2003 14:38 Profile #20 quote: Originally posted by Lone Flame: So I say take away our guns and then see how bad crime really gets. If you need me, I'll be practicing with my sword in case the guns do get taken away. That away, at the very least I'll be able to stop some punk with a switchblade wants my money. Some people have suggested other alternatives, including the replacement of conventional bullets with "paralysis bullets" (which can effectively stop the criminals but can't be used as a lethal weapon) or "stun guns." If such things are introduced, then it may be okay to ban regular guns because people can still use them for self-defense but can't use them to commit murder. -------------------- "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing.-Luke 23:34 Posts: 329 \| Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Drakefyre Triad Mage Member # 7	written Friday, May 16 2003 14:40 Profile Homepage #21 Then there's the hunting angle, which is the only legitimate and coherent argument against banning guns. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Vahnatai Did Do It desperance.net - We're Everywhere The Arena - God Will Sort The Dead ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 \| Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00
RentPeople Infiltrator Member # 2669	written Friday, May 16 2003 14:42 Profile Homepage #22 You don't need semi-automatic anything to hunt with. Nor pistols. Rifles and shotguns, okay. Nothing else. -------------------- ... Posts: 647 \| Registered: Wednesday, February 19 2003 08:00
Sir David Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire! Member # 919	written Friday, May 16 2003 14:50 Profile #23 Ugh... guns... Drakey is half right; hunting is not the only good argument, but it is only one of two, in my opinion. Defense against criminals is a concern, but like someone above said, a nonlethal paralysis bullet or a stun gun would be much better. Of course, many hunters would never settle for that... ah well. And anyway, even if guns were banned, people would still get them if they wanted (look at marijuana, for God's sake). -------------------- And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it. -The Last Pendragon TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL In case of emergency, break glass. Posts: 3351 \| Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
RentPeople Infiltrator Member # 2669	written Friday, May 16 2003 14:58 Profile Homepage #24 Sir David, let's not start this crap again. Smoking pot does not, nor will it ever equal owning an illegal machine designed to afflict maximum pain and death at a distance. I see nothing wrong with smoking a plant, but I have major qualms about owning a man-made killing tool, regardless what flag-waving freedom you think it stands for. -------------------- ... Posts: 647 \| Registered: Wednesday, February 19 2003 08:00