cbacon 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 picked up some shoes, a cheesburger and an AK....47 that is Gun Laws the hypocrisy of the US is laughable. Campaign contributions -- Gun rights groups, led by the National Rifle Association, have given more than $17 million in individual, PAC and soft money contributions to federal candidates and party committees since 1989, far more than the nearly $1.7 million contributed by gun control groups. Gun rights groups have sent 85 percent of their contributions to Republicans during that time, while gun control groups have supported Democrats with 94 percent of their contributions. *Lobbying -- Gun rights groups are even more dominant in lobbying expenditures than they are in campaign contributions. The NRA alone spent nearly $11 million on lobbying from 1997 to 2003. But it wasn't the gun rights lobby's biggest spender. That was Gun Owners of America, which spent more than $18 million on lobbing over the same period. By contrast, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence spent under $2 million on lobbying from 1997 to 2003, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence spent $580,000. *Independent expenditures and communications costs -- Gun rights groups have spent far more than gun control advocates on independent expenditures, which are aimed at the general public and expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, and communications costs to their members about candidates. (Independent expenditures must be paid for with limited "hard" money contributions, while groups can spend unlimited funds on internal communications costs.) Link As they say, money talks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 14, 2004 The NRA does have the Constitution on their side. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest GreatOne Report post Posted September 14, 2004 the hypocrisy of the US is laughable. Yet it doesn't stop you from coming here................... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 14, 2004 BTW, do I dare ask where the "hypocrisy" is? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbacon 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 The need for such firearms is ridiculous firstly, coming from a country that scrutinizes those deemed overly militaristic before invading them. Maybe irony would have been a better choice of words, either way both apply to foreign and domestic policy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 14, 2004 The need for such firearms is ridiculous firstly, Nobody is saying you have to own them. Feel free to not own them all day long. coming from a country that scrutinizes those deemed overly militaristic before invading them. Damn us for, you know, respecting the Constitution. Maybe irony would have been a better choice of words, either way both apply to foreign and domestic policy. Except we've, you know, freed people. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbacon 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 Nobody is saying you have to own them. Feel free to not own them all day long. Definetly not, but those living in a civilized country shouldn't need to. Certainly you cannot deny that having restrictions on these types of arms would result in a safer society and relinquish some fear (as if the public dosen't have enough reason to be swayed into thinking so). Who in God's name thinks it's perfectly reasonable to carry a Uzi of all things. Constitution this and that, 70% of Americans support the law that helped to keep such weapons away. Damn us for, you know, respecting the Constitution. Uh huh, and that includes the right to invade those who may pose a threat in terms of arms? (which was an excuse in the first place in terms of Iraq) while the US is allowed to posses whatever they wish, cause you know they're the police and everything. Which leads to... Except we've, you know, freed people. Sure, free hundreds of thousands while knowingly helping to aid foreign governments or rebels to oppress and slaughter thousands at the same time. Even if it means bringing down democratically elected regimes, the exact principals the US claims to stand by. But the good intentions are so it's ok then right? But that's just opening up a whole different argument all together. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 owning a gun is fine and perfectly legal. However assault rifles and the like are quite unnecessary and have no place in the private sector. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 They have a place in the private sector when I'm about to put a round of caps in someones ass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 They have a place in the private sector when I'm about to put a round of caps in someones ass. well my point was just helped...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Corey_Lazarus 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 Nobody is saying you have to own them. Feel free to not own them all day long. Definetly not, but those living in a civilized country shouldn't need to. Nobody's saying they NEED to. The second amendment doesn't state that every home NEEDS a firearm of some sort. The second amendment, quite clearly, states that if you so wish to own a firearm, the government cannot take it away from you unless you are a convicted felon. Certainly you cannot deny that having restrictions on these types of arms would result in a safer society and relinquish some fear (as if the public dosen't have enough reason to be swayed into thinking so). We do have restrictions on firearms. You cannot own automatic weapons in most of the states of the Union. You cannot carry a concealed firearm without having a badge of some sort. You cannot discharge your firearm unless in the proper section of the area (shooting range, area deemed permissable to hunt in, etc.). You cannot use your firearm anywhere that is not deemed permissable unless in a life or death situation (and, even then, the laws are rather strict on this, as investigations will be started). Are you stupid, or are you just missing the point? Who in God's name thinks it's perfectly reasonable to carry a Uzi of all things. People that live in areas where violence is an every day way of life, for starters. Unfortunately, fully automatic weapons are highly illegal, so an owner of an Uzi - if it is indeed modified to be fully automatic - is a criminal, and is doing what is called, no pun intended, "overkill." Constitution this and that, 70% of Americans support the law that helped to keep such weapons away. Many Americans still believe Jews, blacks, hispanics, and Asians should be killed for being different. Many Americans still believe women should not be able to run for political office. That doesn't stop the Constitution from protecting the parties they disagree with, now does it? The Constitution is not, currently, a "majority rules" problem solving document. It is based on fairness and equality, and amendments are made to protect equality in this nation. Now learn a fucking thing or two about it before trying to start shit over it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Nanks Report post Posted September 14, 2004 Yeah, how would you feel if the King of England came into your house and starting pushing you around?? Huh?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Corey_Lazarus 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 Exactly! Not in my house, man! Nobody's coming in here! Janet Reno can get her Navy SEALs, because I got ol' Smith & Wesson, yessir! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbacon 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 Nobody's saying they NEED to. The second amendment doesn't state that every home NEEDS a firearm of some sort. The second amendment, quite clearly, states that if you so wish to own a firearm, the government cannot take it away from you unless you are a convicted felon. I'm not debating that. Of course the arms industry is protected by such constitutional regulations, for that same reason it escapes persecution since it coincides with the notion of civil liberty. One of which is a gross flaw in the system, but hey, c'est la vie. We do have restrictions on firearms. You cannot own automatic weapons in most of the states of the Union. You cannot carry a concealed firearm without having a badge of some sort. You cannot discharge your firearm unless in the proper section of the area (shooting range, area deemed permissable to hunt in, etc.). You cannot use your firearm anywhere that is not deemed permissable unless in a life or death situation (and, even then, the laws are rather strict on this, as investigations will be started). Are you stupid, or are you just missing the point? Clearly you missed the point brought up in this thread in regards to the non-renewal of the assault weapons ban. Thats what i meant by restrictions, keeping the likes of AK-47's and Uzi's off the market, not what you can or can do with said arms. People that live in areas where violence is an every day way of life, for starters. Unfortunately, fully automatic weapons are highly illegal, so an owner of an Uzi - if it is indeed modified to be fully automatic - is a criminal, and is doing what is called, no pun intended, "overkill." Thats such BS. Handguns are still legal are they not? The need for having a weapon that fires off 600 rounds a minute is ridiculous. I'm sure even in the worst of places you can walk the streets without being surrounded by the mafia. 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, adding more ammo to the collective fire kills more. Many Americans still believe Jews, blacks, hispanics, and Asians should be killed for being different. Many Americans still believe women should not be able to run for political office. That doesn't stop the Constitution from protecting the parties they disagree with, now does it? Be sure not to confuse "Many" with "Majority". The Constitution is not, currently, a "majority rules" problem solving document. It is based on fairness and equality, and amendments are made to protect equality in this nation. Now learn a fucking thing or two about it before trying to start shit over it. It's all relative. The second amendment gives the right to bear arms to Americans, yet the men who drafted the document lived in a world far different from our own. A world where defending themselves from a corrupt government and against native americans necessitaed gun ownership. In another sense, the ordinary citizen taking place of the military, in addition to hunting for food. Such trivial nature does not exist in 2004, for there are supermarkets for food, police and military for protection and Indians to meet one's gambling fix. There are no use for guns, even in the most extreme situations where handguns may be deemed neccesary (not that i agree, but i;ll say this for arguments sake) this still does not facilitate the need for various assault rifles outlined in the recent ban that was lifted. It's really ironic that a country that is so worried about terrorism is not worried about mass amounts of people that are now able to down their homes with a wide varity of automatic rifles. Those who feel the need to arm themselves clearly lives in a society created by fear, stemming from such violence caused by gun use in the first place. Owning weapons isn't something that is needed in today's society, plain and simple. No need for logic though, the constution will help protect everyone and bring "equality". That said, let civil insecurity roam. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 It's also there so the people will have a means of resisting a corrupt goverment if it came down to it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted September 14, 2004 And who's going to be stupid enough to go rob someone's house and harm the inhabitants if there's a good chance Dad's sporting an AR? Would you rather all the criminals just have guns? That's what happens when a citizens rights to bear arms gets restricted. Personally, I'm not waiting for some fucking fat cop to drive the 15 minutes out to my house to remove an armed intruder when I can legally blow a hole in him 8 inches wide. Also, what are Canada's gun laws like? I seriously don't know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 Let's just say you wouldn't be happy up there. Oh, yeah. Thanks to lifting this ban, now the terrorists will be running around shooting up shit. Damn you George W. HITLER -- why could you renew it, even though you have no such power to do so?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 If there was a corrupt military take-over, an AK47 would be a lot better than some Saturday nigh special. But hey, how likely IS that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 Forget the military take-over. I'm more worried about a hippie-takeover. But then again, all I'd have to fire off is soap or job application forms... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
El Psycho Diablo 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 owning a gun is fine and perfectly legal. However assault rifles and the like are quite unnecessary and have no place in the private sector. Don't be hasty, now. Never say an assault rifle is "unnecessary". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skywarp! 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 It's also there so the people will have a means of resisting a corrupt goverment if it came down to it. That excuse no longer holds water, because even with machine guns the American citizens couldn't overthrow the government. They have helicopters and cruise missles that can kill all rebels from miles away, not to mention tanks. If Bush announced a dictatorship tomorrow, even if we were all packing, we couldn't do a damn thing about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted September 14, 2004 Actually most dictator's disarm the population before becoming a dictator. While you couldn't stop the government in any kind of a war the population being armed does stop something like that from happening. If they have to kill 3/4 of the population for absolute rule they won't do it because they'd destroy the country in the process. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TJH Report post Posted September 14, 2004 The NRA does have the Constitution on their side. -=Mike Damn us for, you know, respecting the Constitution. Has the idea that, maybe, just maybe, the consitution is flawed on this issue and should be changed occured to you? Did the NRA challenge the original ban in the courts? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 Did the NRA challenge the original ban in the courts? Yes, they did. People who use the Second Amendment argument seem to do so only because there are no other rational arguments to refute a ban on assault weapons. And even that's not a good argument. Nowhere is there a provision in the Constitution that certain types of guns can't be outlawed. An argument that "you can own a gun, just not THIS gun" is perfectly in keeping with the Constitution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 I'm always mixed on this issue because I'm liberal but also live in a family with guns. I see them first and foremost as a hunting tool, then as something that can defend yourself if need be. That's the vision I support in regards to firearms. I don't approve of guns that are specifically for the use of killing people. I don't support cop killer bullets or saturday night specials. I also think it's fine to profile people who own guns. I don't mind violating the constitution if it means convicted violent criminals and mentally unstable people are kept away from the guns. Other than that, arm away. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 14, 2004 The NRA does have the Constitution on their side. -=Mike Damn us for, you know, respecting the Constitution. Has the idea that, maybe, just maybe, the consitution is flawed on this issue and should be changed occured to you? Absolutely not. As has been pointed out, historically, EVERY dictator does the exact same thing when coming to power --- they take away all guns. NOBODY should willingly forfeit their rights. To do so is to INVITE tyranny. Nowhere is there a provision in the Constitution that certain types of guns can't be outlawed. An argument that "you can own a gun, just not THIS gun" is perfectly in keeping with the Constitution. Simple question: Would people be so willing to forfeit certain types of, say, speech? How about forfeiting certain types of voting? The 2nd Amendment deserves the same respect. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 Forget the military take-over. I'm more worried about a hippie-takeover. But then again, all I'd have to fire off is soap or job application forms... LOOK OUT! INCOMING SELECTIVE SERVICE APPLICATIONS! RETREAT~! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 Nowhere is there a provision in the Constitution that certain types of guns can't be outlawed. An argument that "you can own a gun, just not THIS gun" is perfectly in keeping with the Constitution. Simple question: Would people be so willing to forfeit certain types of, say, speech? Given the restrictions on what can be broadcast over the airwaves, obscenity legislation, certain hate crime legislation and the like, I would say that people are generally OK with excluding certain types of speech from the First Amendment. The 2nd Amendment deserves the same respect. The Second Amendment is worded differently. Observe: Article [i.] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Article [iI.] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. You can restrict what arms a person may own without infringing on their right, in general, to bear arms if they so choose. Abridging someone's right to free speech is a lot more cut and dried...ANY restriction is seen as an abridgement of that right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 It's really ironic that a country that is so worried about terrorism is not worried about mass amounts of people that are now able to down their homes with a wide varity of automatic rifles. Those who feel the need to arm themselves clearly lives in a society created by fear, stemming from such violence caused by gun use in the first place. Owning weapons isn't something that is needed in today's society, plain and simple. No need for logic though, the constution will help protect everyone and bring "equality". That said, let civil insecurity roam. Did you know in places where gun laws are looser and that there are more legally owned guns, less crime tends to occur? The entire state of Texas had less car-jackings than the City of Detroit. Why? Because, in Texas, if you can carry it, it's yours. If I'm a criminal, do I want to rob someone who might be carrying a pistol, or a shotgun, or hell, and Uzi? Point in case as well on the bolded statement: did you know that every country that has issued a full weapons ban has had massive increases in crimes like assault, car-jackings, and other crimes of the same nature? Seriously, you're putting forth crap you saw in Bowling for Columbine, and it's coming off even weaker than the film. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted September 14, 2004 Put some stats up on that, Powerplay. The second amendment, quite clearly, states that if you so wish to own a firearm, the government cannot take it away from you unless you are a convicted felon. ...where does it say that in the Constitution? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
