Terrorists can come into this country and buy an AK47?

[Preechr]

Kerry just said terrorists can now, thanks to Dubya's inaction on the assault weapons ban, come to this country and go to a gun show and buy an assault weapon, and he specifically inferred that he was talking about an AK47, without a background check.

That's possibly the biggest lie of this campaign.

[ThisIsWitty]

Don't worry. In a few weeks he'll decide gun shows are the safest place in the world.

[Preechr]

I feel better now that I know Native Americans gave him a blessing the other day.

[ThisIsWitty]

He's like a god to them. What with his totem-pole-esq head and everything.

[Preechr]

ROFL

[El Blanco]

Considering how you can travel through Africa and pick up one for $3, I like the idea of terrorists actually being stupid enough to come here and buy them.

I don't think they want to walk through our gun shows anymore than I want to sit in on one of their recruiting drives.

[kahljorn]

I'm pretty sure he didn't say you could buy AK's from gun shows. I'm pretty sure what he said is that the terrorist handbook says to buy guns in america from gun shows. But that's just me, and i have this uncanny ability to comprehend what people are saying without mixing the previous sentence into things. You dyslexic assholes.

[Zhukov]

I think El Blanco pointed out why the 'terrorist handbook' probably wouldn't say to go to the US and buy one. Unless the terrorist were already in the US (sleeper cells and whatnot) and couldn't get out of the country.

Is it still possible to actually get one from a gun show though? Africa jsut doesn't excite me enough to warrant a trip.

[Anonymous]

I don't think all the terrorists in the world operate outside of North America. It's perfectly reasonable to think that a person can buy a gun from a gun show with an intent to spread terror, without being of middle eastern descent or even having a funny name.

But even if they do, the option's still there.

[Preechr]

When you buy a gun at a gun show, you are subject to a background check. I have bought a gun at a gun show, and I waited over an hour while they made sure it was safe for them to sell me a weapon. While this may be anecdotal and thus dismissable, when the told me he needed some info for the check, I asked him if there was any way to get around it, and he nearly walked away from me. It was pretty obvious that if I hadn't agreed to the check I wouldn't have gotten the gun.

As I waited, I asked him about the gun show rumor, and he assured me that it was bogus. You can no more get a gun legally at a show without getting checked out than you can at a Walmart. The only difference is the waiting period in those states that require it I believe, but my state doesn't have one so I'm not sure about that. Even if true, I'm not so sure a waiting period is any sort of effective deterrant to anything other than gun ownership itself.

[glowbelly]

just because you don't have a criminal record doesn't mean that you aren't capable of committing a huge crime.

i guess i'm just wondering what kind of background check can be done in an hour.

[Preechr]

Probably not much of one...

However, whether or not someone has a criminal record has no real bearing on their capability to commit a huge crime. Whether or not a criminal has a gun has no bearing on his willingness to commit a crime. There just is no test that could practically predict whether any particular gun will someday be used for criminal purposes.

The only option you have is to ban and confiscate every gun in the world and use them to shoot anyone with enough knowledge or sense to make one, which isn't very realistic. Anything short of that is a half-measure. Generally, any regulations that affect the legal purchase of a gun do nothing to hinder someone from obtaining one illegally or by stealing it. The people most affected by gun laws are those that wish to buy a gun to protect themselves from criminals. That seems a bit backward.

I got a .38 in an hour, though, so I don't figure the laws are all that strict.

[Anonymous]

Guns and their ammunition should be illegal in all but the hands of law enforcement agencies and the military. "Simple as that."

To compromise your entire nation's security just because you want to be a jackass and go traipsing in the woods to gun down water buffalo with a semi-automatic is worse than being immature, it's a fatal error of judgement and a fundamental issue with this country.

It's the same attitude the country has with nuclear weapons; We're not willing to lead by example. Japan and England haven't had firearms for a long time and they're safer nations because of it - In 1996, handguns were used to murder 15 people in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, and 9,390 in the United States, and this statistic has done nothing but worsen with time. If we were to have a firearms prohibition, the first few years would be a little rougher on the victims of violent crimes and armed robbery (assuming these people were somehow able to defend themselves with a firearm in the past, i.e. VERY few cases), but if the police force was increased to a reasonable number, it'd even out over a decade or so and serve to make this nation a lot less violent in the future.

You don't NEED to hunt. You don't NEED to defend yourself in a shootout at the O.K. corral. If someone wants to end your career with a gun - unless you have your defense surgically attached to your palm or the oracle warned you about it earlier in the day - there is fuck all you're gonna be able to do about it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

They both made really outlandish claims in that debate. I enjoyed it.

[Preechr]

Yes, because we have a long, rich history of Prohibitions working in this country. That's why there are no illegal drugs anymore, because the prohibition we placed on them 60 years ago, though it was rough at the beginning, eventually worked out and drugs became impossible to find.

You need to factor in for the fact that America is simply a much larger country than either Japan (an island) or the UK (another island) and we are in the uneviable position of having to guard many hundred times more border than they do, with many, many more airports as well.

I bought my gun because I was worried that my fiance (at that time) was spending a lot of time at home alone, recovering from cancer, and needed the extra protection from a worst case scenario. I still own it, and have never actually fired it myself. It's a necessary evil, but necessary all the same.

BTW, automatic weapons being banned in this country has nothing at all to do with the current assault weapons ban. That's what makes Kerry's statement last night so outrageous. He starts off with, "I'm a hunter..." as if that buys him the right to say whatever the hell he wants. It's the same thing as if he were to say, "I love butt-sex with other men..." and then "all Homosexuals are abominations to God and every one of them likes to abduct children and do evil things with them."

[El Blanco]

Guns and their ammunition should be illegal in all but the hands of law enforcement agencies and the military. "Simple as that."

Thatrs a great idea. I will completly trust the government with that sort of power.

And, as we all know, police forces are omnipresent and appear as soon as we feel we are in danger. Its not like the SUPREME FUCKING COURT said they aren't responsible for each and every person's individual safety.

To compromise your entire nation's security

How does someone buying a pistol comprmise national security?

just because you want to be a jackass and go traipsing in the woods to gun down water buffalo with a semi-automatic is worse than being immature, it's a fatal error of judgement and a fundamental issue with this country.

Where is compared to talking out your ass about something you know nothing about?



Japan and England haven't had firearms for a long time and they're safer nations because of it

Bullshit. Violent crime has risen in England in the last 10 years. In fact, you are more likely to get mugged in London than in New York City.

Also, the cities in the US withthe highest violent crime rates also happen to have the strictest gun laws (Washington DC anyone?).

Also, you are more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in Enland than the US

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_vic

About Japan. that is a completly different culture. People are much more subservient to authority. Is that the society you want?

If we were to have a firearms prohibition, the first few years would be a little rougher on the victims of violent crimes and armed robbery (assuming these people were somehow able to defend themselves with a firearm in the past, i.e. VERY few cases), but if the police force was increased to a reasonable number, it'd even out over a decade or so and serve to make this nation a lot less violent in the future.

You are aware drinking actually increased during prohibition, right?

And how is banning private ownership of firearms going to stop criminals from getting them? Why can't they import them or make their own?

[/quote]You don't NEED to hunt. You don't NEED to defend yourself in a shootout at the O.K. corral.

You don't need to use the internet. You don't need to protest.

And when was the last time you saw someone walking down the street with gun on their hip like they were Billy the Kid?

If someone wants to end your career with a gun - unless you have your defense surgically attached to your palm or the oracle warned you about it earlier in the day - there is fuck all you're gonna be able to do about it.

Or if you want to learn how to properly use a firearm. But, lets not have reality mess up your perfectly good brain fart.

[Ant10708]

El Blanco wins

[Ant10708]

Japan also has the highest rate of suicides which must really inconvenience them to not have a nice gun around to blow their brains out. I guess they probaly prefer the quieter hanging.

[AChimp]

Guns should be cheap, but bullets should cost $5000 each. :chrisrock :O

[Emu]

BTW, automatic weapons being banned in this country has nothing at all to do with the current assault weapons ban. That's what makes Kerry's statement last night so outrageous. He starts off with, "I'm a hunter..." as if that buys him the right to say whatever the hell he wants. It's the same thing as if he were to say, "I love butt-sex with other men..." and then "all Homosexuals are abominations to God and every one of them likes to abduct children and do evil things with them."

Not necessarily. You can hunt with a bow, too.

[FS]

yeah if you're BRUCE FUCKIN' WILLIS



...I really don't know why I said that.

[JPR]

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_vic
I sure do trust the scientists at NationMaster.com, where stats truely do come alive. Heart warming.

[El Blanco]

Damn, its not letting me edit my post to fix my bbcode raping.

Its a fucking liberal conspiracy.

[mew barios]

ive had this discussion with lots of people before, i support the right to own a gun. i would love to change my opinion onnit :( if someone could show me a concrete argument based in some kinda fact that a weapons ban actually makes people safer. it always looks like the opposite :/

[Crying Baby Jesus]

You can buy Variants of just about any AK weapon in north america, you can buy M16 that use .22 ammo, and semi-automatic sub machineguns such as the uzi. Just remember WHO's gonna buy these all BEFORE the terrorists. You'll all be better armed than they will

[The One and Only...]

When you buy a gun at a gun show, you are subject to a background check. I have bought a gun at a gun show, and I waited over an hour while they made sure it was safe for them to sell me a weapon. While this may be anecdotal and thus dismissable, when the told me he needed some info for the check, I asked him if there was any way to get around it, and he nearly walked away from me. It was pretty obvious that if I hadn't agreed to the check I wouldn't have gotten the gun.

As I waited, I asked him about the gun show rumor, and he assured me that it was bogus. You can no more get a gun legally at a show without getting checked out than you can at a Walmart. The only difference is the waiting period in those states that require it I believe, but my state doesn't have one so I'm not sure about that. Even if true, I'm not so sure a waiting period is any sort of effective deterrant to anything other than gun ownership itself.

It's not a matter of legality. It's a matter of enforcement.

My own grandfather has purchased two guns from a gun show without ever getting a background check.

And yes, Kerry did say that you can buy an AK47 legally in this country. That in and of itself is a lie. The assault weapons now legal after the expiration of the ban were semi-autos, not fully automatic.

[Anonymous]

Yes, because we have a long, rich history of Prohibitions working in this country.
Firearm prohibition is different from drugs and alcohol in that gun use is not a 'vice.' You don't get chemically addicted to firing a fucking gun. Why is that hard to understand?

You need to factor in for the fact that America is simply a much larger country than either Japan (an island) or the UK (another island) and we are in the uneviable position of having to guard many hundred times more border than they do, with many, many more airports as well.
Because we don't have ANYTHING at airports that can detect guns. The UK isn't as small as you think, either, and are physically closer to places that have cheap weapons.

I still own [a gun for protection], and have never actually fired it myself. It's a necessary evil, but necessary all the same.
In what situation would you actually use the gun, though? Someone breaks into your house, starts running at you with a firearm levelled, and you strafe to the side and put one in their bean? If someone's going to break into your house, it's going to be to steal your shit, not to engage in an honorable duel with you in your living room. Provided that isn't the case, it'll be illegal for you to fire on them if your life isn't in danger.

And, as we all know, police forces are omnipresent and appear as soon as we feel we are in danger. Its not like the SUPREME FUCKING COURT said they aren't responsible for each and every person's individual safety.
And it's not like I said that we'd need to enlist a lot more officers to make it feasible. And it's not like you weren't paying attention to anything I had to say, instead opting to quote the bits you could write the most clever responses to.

How does someone buying a pistol comprmise national security?
They can be used on public officials, too. Just because such people were immune to it in 'Half-Life' doesn't mean it happens here in the real world too.

Bullshit. Violent crime has risen in England in the last 10 years. In fact, you are more likely to get mugged in London than in New York City.

Also, the cities in the US withthe highest violent crime rates also happen to have the strictest gun laws (Washington DC anyone?).

Also, you are more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in Enland than the US.
When being mugged in England, are you more likely to die from the exchange? Washington DC having high crime rates as a result of strict gun laws is about as sound a parallel as Ronnie complaining that gay people destroy heterosexual marriages. About that graph, does it still count as 'assault' when the person being assaulted is killed, or does it get upgraded to murder at that point? It doesn't make any sense to me that the US would be a safer country than fucking CANADA.

About Japan. that is a completly different culture. People are much more subservient to authority. Is that the society you want?
So, by that reasoning, people in the US murder people with guns entirely on account of a desire to 'shirk the rules' and a degenerative attitude? Wouldn't Hot Topic start selling flak jackets and JHP rounds?

And how is banning private ownership of firearms going to stop criminals from getting them? Why can't they import them or make their own?
It wouldn't stop them entirely, but it'd make it a lot less easy. What usefulness gun prohibition wouldn't have in regard to organized crime it'd make up for in freelance dickheadedry - muggings, crimes of passion, and accidents.

...if you want to [defend yourself,] learn how to properly use a firearm.
Because being able to pick off a bottle of Mello Yello at 500 yards REALLY helps when being threatened at gunpoint when you're out walking around and unable to carry your precious gun. Or when you're the proprietor of a store and being robbed, in the which case you don't know the guys have a gun until it's in your face. The ONLY situations in which you'd have an opportunity to defend yourself with a firearm would be ones in which you either already have the weapon in-hand or know well in advance that you'll need to use it - anotherwards, never.

[Crying Baby Jesus]

i'm getting a Berretta 92F when I move out, then hopefully a AR-12


People forget that You could always buy certain Assault rifles, The AR-12 which is basically a toned down M16 (calibre wise) was availible for long before other other weapons. As with The HK USC a downgraded UMP. Its not a matter of the banning or contoll its availibility of the weapons thats the issue, If some store ownes don't liek selling assault weapons to people they don't want to they don't really ahve to. there the ones wih dosens of guns.

[El Blanco]

Yes, because we have a long, rich history of Prohibitions working in this country.
Firearm prohibition is different from drugs and alcohol in that gun use is not a 'vice.' You don't get chemically addicted to firing a fucking gun. Why is that hard to understand?

Because will still want them. You can't ban items.


Because we don't have ANYTHING at airports that can detect guns. The UK isn't as small as you think, either, and are physically closer to places that have cheap weapons.

That and there are ways to beat metal detectors.

Oh, and England doesn't have as many access points as the US. Keep in mind we share the world's largest unprotected border with Canada and another huge border with Mexico.


In what situation would you actually use the gun, though? Someone breaks into your house, starts running at you with a firearm levelled, and you strafe to the side and put one in their bean? If someone's going to break into your house, it's going to be to steal your shit, not to engage in an honorable duel with you in your living room. Provided that isn't the case, it'll be illegal for you to fire on them if your life isn't in danger.

You don't know that. All you know is that there is an intruder in your home.


And it's not like I said that we'd need to enlist a lot more officers to make it feasible. And it's not like you weren't paying attention to anything I had to say, instead opting to quote the bits you could write the most clever responses to.

I went at the meat of your arguments. No need to dissect every other word of it.

Also, whats your idea of the proper amount of police to make this ban feasable? What ratio? How do you pay for it? Whats the proper amount of training? How do you explain your plan to people who simply don't trust the police and government?


They can be used on public officials, too. Just because such people were immune to it in 'Half-Life' doesn't mean it happens here in the real world too.

I have no idea what you just said. Are you implying that because a pistol can be used to harm a government official, it has to be outlawed? Well, lets get rid of the internet, automobiles and propane tanks. All of those have been used to commit major crimes.


When being mugged in England, are you more likely to die from the exchange?

You want to take that chance?

Washington DC having high crime rates as a result of strict gun laws is about as sound a parallel as Ronnie complaining that gay people destroy heterosexual marriages.

And yet saying that a high number of guns leads to more crime, even though statistics says other wise is perfect logic? I don't think arming the populace will make crime disappear, but it will help keep the criminals in check.

About that graph, does it still count as 'assault' when the person being assaulted is killed, or does it get upgraded to murder at that point?

Probably depends on what the locals call "assault", "murder" and "man slaughter".

It doesn't make any sense to me that the US would be a safer country than fucking CANADA.

So, its not true because you don't like it? Why don't you actually refute the stat?


So, by that reasoning, people in the US murder people with guns entirely on account of a desire to 'shirk the rules' and a degenerative attitude? Wouldn't Hot Topic start selling flak jackets and JHP rounds?

No, but look at their society and how it views individuality. Look at its suicide rate. Look at the grip the Yakuza have. You'll have to excuse me if I don't see that a the ideal society to mimic..


It wouldn't stop them entirely, but it'd make it a lot less easy.

Ya, for law abiding citizens.

What usefulness gun prohibition wouldn't have in regard to organized crime it'd make up for in freelance dickheadedry - muggings,

Unless the mob decided to sell guns on the streets like they do with narcotics.

crimes of passion,

Ya, I'm pissed off at my wife, so I'm going to head to the local shop (if its open), shell out the cash, do thew paper work, let them run the background check and all that other shit and then go shoot her. I certainly couldn't just take a household impliment and kill her.

and accidents.

More people die in home swimming pools every year.


Because being able to pick off a bottle of Mello Yello at 500 yards REALLY helps when being threatened at gunpoint when you're out walking around and unable to carry your precious gun. Or when you're the proprietor of a store and being robbed, in the which case you don't know the guys have a gun until it's in your face. The ONLY situations in which you'd have an opportunity to defend yourself with a firearm would be ones in which you either already have the weapon in-hand or know well in advance that you'll need to use it - anotherwards, never.

Or, you can take the courses provided by local gun clubs and firingranmges and for free by the NRA and learn how to properly use a firearm for home and personal defense.

Much the way people must learn how to drive cars.

[Preechr]

In what situation would you actually use the gun, though?

The situation I can't forsee where my mouth, fists or my feet couldn't avoid the danger. As I said, I didn't get the gun until I had someone other than myself to protect, as well. I would place a loved one's life ahead of a man that would break into my house any day. The thought of what might happen in the absence of some sort of equalizer is pretty sobering.

Additionally, I'd rather not be remembered as the nice guy that believed so much in people that he died with nothing but a dog to defend him from an armed intruder. I'd rather not be remembered as the guy that let his ideology get in the way of doing whatever was required to protect the woman he loved.

If someone busts down my door in the middle of the night, his life is forfeit. He knows that when he invades my home. I'm not going to make a silly, possibly fatal decision like he's to dumb to know the risk he's taking. At the point my life is on the scales with that sort of criminal, I'm not going to factor in for the path that brought him into my house to threaten my existence or that of those I love and are duty-bound to protect.

I live in a state that favors the right of a property owner to protect what's his. I probably wouldn't live in a state that didn't respect my right to defend myself. While it's admittedly fucked up to know that a man's dead body in my home is Ok as long as it's A.) in the house, and B.) the body of a man I can say threatened me, I'd rather have the law lean my way than toward the criminal trespasser.

That being said, I also have a 150 pound dog to warn me if someone is even standing on my porch. He sleeps at the foot of my bed and can hear a pin drop out n the street. If someone makes it into the house after hearing his baritone bellowing, I'm pretty sure I'll know that person's intentions are less than honorable. I trained him to differentiate between threats and random noise, and he quietly takes off to investigate suspicious sounds several times per night.

Now, I don't want you to think I'm some sort of paranoid survivalist, but I have prepared the defenses of my home and the lives of those that live here to such an extreme degree because I value these things much more than I value the life of someone that would harm or kill me or mine for such a stupid reason as whatever cash he could get out of my belongings at a pawn shop.

Whatever an intruder's motivation, I know it's in conflict with mine and obviously more evil than my own intention of living peacefully. I feel that this sort of attitude is my minimum obligation to anyone seeking shelter in my home with my approval.

Pretending to be protecting my home without allowing myself the advantage or the equalization of a firearm is as silly as attempting to paint my house without a brush. I can always re-paint, but I'll never forget the guilt of letting an ideology stop me from saving the life of someone to which I'd obligated myself to protect.

Because we don't have ANYTHING at airports that can detect guns. The UK isn't as small as you think, either, and are physically closer to places that have cheap weapons.

Have you been listening to John Kerry? As long as the guns are shipped in containers or stored in the hold of a plane, there's really no problem with smuggling them in. By setting up a prohibition, you create a blackmarket which drives the price of the product up, attracting those that will apply enough thought to the problem to overcome any obstacles.

As I and El Blanco said, there's also nothing to stop a criminal from making a firearm. Some blackpowder, a piece of PVC tubing with a cap and a lighter can make a weapon effective enough to kill you while only requiring a potatoe as a projectile. Are we gonna outlaw potatoes as well? PVC? Matches?

Holding a gun no more makes someone a violent criminal than were they holding a joint or a baby. If they're doing all three at once, I'd agree that's likely a problem. Killing, wounding or threatening someone with a gun is more illegal as driving drunk. Holding a beer is not likely to ever be considered illegal or even dangerous, but a decision to drive a car while doing so repeatedly is probably more dangerous than random firing shots into the air.

The UK is much smaller than North America, and it has much fewer entry points. Security is impossible in this country. Many, many weapons are produced in Mexico, too... more than enough to supply any criminal willing to violate your prohibition that's expanded the scope of his activities past the usefulness of a potatoe. We can't stop 8,000 illegal immigrants flooding up from Mexico each day. You want me to believe we could stop guns from being illegally imported?

Firearm prohibition is different from drugs and alcohol in that gun use is not a 'vice.' You don't get chemically addicted to firing a fucking gun. Why is that hard to understand?

Prohibition is prohibition, and it never works in this country. We still have slavery, in the form of illegal immigrants; discrimination against women and minorities; and plenty of drugs, despite all our well-intentioned prohibitions. It has nothing to do with addiction, but I'll argue criminal behavior is a form of addiction if you want...

And I've never fired my gun. She did, but I wouldn't kill someone just to save my own skin. In fact, my cousin just moved into an apartment on her own, and I'm taking her to the firing range this weekend to show her how to use the gun I'm about to give her. Now that it's just me and Oscar, I don't need the damn thing as much as she does.

[Preechr]

Oh yeah... I forgot we were trading links (http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm)...

[Anonymous]

Because will still want them. You can't ban items.
Uh? Even with the proper words added to make this a sentence, it still doesn't make sense.

You don't know that. All you know is that there is an intruder in your home.
And it's illegal to fire on them unless they are armed or you can otherwise prove your conviction that they were about to kill you.

Also, whats your idea of the proper amount of police to make this ban feasable? What ratio? How do you pay for it? Whats the proper amount of training? How do you explain your plan to people who simply don't trust the police and government?
Oh, sure. Let me go ahead and type up fifty pages on my proposal to the gun-toting cynics of the internet to help me save some face here. You can expect my first draft by next Wednesday. Maybe if I was a legislator or writing a paper for the Have A Dream foundation I'd go ahead and pull exact ratios of police and their daily iteneraries as they complete my tough but fair American Gladiator-style training regimen out of my ass, as well as develop a complete finacial plan on how I'd pay for all the pads used in the gauntlet at the end. I said that we'd be safer without guns and with more police. I never said it was a feasible option at this moment in history, especially given our country's current horrid economic standing and the fact that no-one would ever remove the right to bear arms, however antiquitated it may be. So you don't have to worry about me not liking half of US households having firearms because my opinion not only means fuck all, but doesn't affect you in any way.

Just thought I'd give you those last two sentences so you could just quote that and then respond with something really cynical and biting. You can thank me later.

Are you implying that because a pistol can be used to harm a government official, it has to be outlawed? Well, lets get rid of the internet, automobiles and propane tanks. All of those have been used to commit major crimes.
Yeah, I remember that time President Bush got assassinated by the internets. We've had plenty o' public officials that have been maimed by idealists who didn't even have to struggle to get their weapon of choice.


When being mugged in England, are you more likely to die from the exchange?
You want to take that chance?
Uh, sure? Yeah, I'd like to not die if I'm gonna get mugged.

And yet saying that a high number of guns leads to more crime, even though statistics says other wise is perfect logic?
Statistics say that gun-related violence goes from two digits to four with the right for citizens to bear arms. It doesn't necessarily lead to more crimes, just tons and tons more deaths.

About that graph, does it still count as 'assault' when the person being assaulted is killed, or does it get upgraded to murder at that point?
Probably depends on what the locals call "assault", "murder" and "man slaughter".
You're missing the point; There is no way Canada is more dangerous than the US. This leads me to believe that your graph of assaults only count the crime of 'assault', not 'assault with a deadly weapon,' 'murder' of any degree, or 'manslaughter.' It is much better to be 'assaulted' than any of those other options.

crimes of passion,
Ya, I'm pissed off at my wife, so I'm going to head to the local shop (if its open), shell out the cash, do thew paper work, let them run the background check and all that other shit and then go shoot her. I certainly couldn't just take a household impliment and kill her.
I don't mean to sound like the pretenious over-educated and under-experienced cocks most of you in this forum come off as, but you are again missing the point. If you already HAVE a gun in the house, you don't need to go buy another just to go blast your cheating wife in the face. Your kid doesn't need to go shoplift one in order to go put a few rounds in Billy. It's already right there in your home, somewhere safely tucked away where you'd never be able to reach it in times of emergency, but would have access if you were all set to do something stupid with it.

More people die in home swimming pools every year.
McGruff would totally kick your ass if he heard you say that.

Or, you can take the courses provided by local gun clubs and firingranmges and for free by the NRA and learn how to properly use a firearm for home and personal defense.

Much the way people must learn how to drive cars.
Or, you can re-read what I had typed and you're rebutting to, because I already addressed your ridiculous point in there.

Now, I don't want you to think I'm some sort of paranoid survivalist, but I have prepared the defenses of my home and the lives of those that live here to such an extreme degree because I value these things...:tear...
Uh huh. If someone's so fucking determined to get into your house and arm themselves while doing so, chances are they'll be coming for you long before you gear up for battle like in the intro to Operation Wolf and step into the foyer to take the law into your own extremely capable hands.

As long as the guns are shipped in containers or stored in the hold of a plane, there's really no problem with smuggling them in. By setting up a prohibition, you create a blackmarket which drives the price of the product up, attracting those that will apply enough thought to the problem to overcome any obstacles.

As I and El Blanco said, there's also nothing to stop a criminal from making a firearm. Some blackpowder, a piece of PVC tubing with a cap and a lighter can make a weapon effective enough to kill you while only requiring a potatoe as a projectile. Are we gonna outlaw potatoes as well? PVC? Matches?
I don't know how you'd enforce an import ban, and I get the feeling that you don't either. The notion that people would suddenly become incredibly curious hobbyists concerning guns the moment they're illegal is silly at best, and retarded at worst. I'd also think that someone's Colt PVC .Potatoe caliber rifle would be at least somewhat less effective than the real deal. If it wasn't, why wouldn't we all be making this shit in shop class?

Holding a gun no more makes someone a violent criminal than were they holding a joint or a baby.
Uh huh. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, am i right guys. Thing is? When you want to hurt someone and you have a gun, chances are that at least one of you won't be able to hurt anyone again.

Prohibition is prohibition, and it never works in this country.
Well, shit, let's just throw down and urinate on the goddamn constitution! It doesn't matter anymore, boys! The police know and understand that we Americans are genetically pre-disposed to thwarting authority - which I am to understand is a direct cause of our propensity to unload a clip on anything that can bleed - and really, come on, did they expect us to follow all these fucking laws they keep passing? As an American, I have a right to pick and choose which laws I follow and which ones I DISMISSIVELY TUMBLE DOWN A MUDDY EMBANKMENT AS A RESULT OF ME NEVER, EVER BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR A SINGLE ACTION IN MY LIFE SINCE WE'RE ALL SUCH NE'ER-DO-WELLS ANYWAY!

Saying that you shouldn't prevent people from doing bad shit because at some point someone's gonna break the law is like saying you shouldn't drink water because you're eventually gonna have to urinate. Use some common sense and try to cry less about how someone's trying to silently maneuver past your guards, checkpoints, and ball pit in a premeditated effort to slit your fat mom's throat.

Sorry. Kinda got caught up in the moment there.

[kahljorn]

"I was hunting in Iowa last year with a sheriff from one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us, and said, "See the house over? We just did a drug bust a week earlier, and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him."

Because of the president's decision today, law enforcement officers will walk into a place that will be more dangerous. Terrorists can now come into America and go to a gun show and, without even a background check, buy an assault weapon today.

And that's what Osama bin Laden's handbook said, because we captured it in Afghanistan. It encouraged them to do it. "


What now bitches. Also, weapons can be easily modded to be a fully automatic weapon. Oh, and also, bush himself also said that there weren't enough background checks.

LEARN TO FUCKING LISTEN, for fucks sake, you guys are idiots. You shouldn't even be online arguing, you dyslexic pieces of shit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1013.html

[FS]

Khaka?

You can buy Variants of just about any AK weapon in north america, you can buy M16 that use .22 ammo, and semi-automatic sub machineguns such as the uzi. Just remember WHO's gonna buy these all BEFORE the terrorists. You'll all be better armed than they will

Nobody should even be responding to you, but this was too good to pass up. I'd like to see you take on anyone carrying an ordinary handgun, with an automatic weapon or rifle. You'd probably kill half your family and still leave a villain-shaped silhouette in the wall before you'd get capped. Like it fucking matters what version number's on the barrel of your gun when you face a criminal (who's probably a lot more guns than you). A bullet it still going to come out of both if you pull the trigger, and if it's a whole lot of bullets you'll need the luck of hitting the criminal on the first burst, cause the rest of the magazine is going to be wasted.

i'm getting a Berretta 92F when I move out, then hopefully a AR-12

And maybe you'll learn to masturbate with your left hand so you can use your right to cock the gun at the moment of climax, you Rambo you.


I think Chojin makes a very valid point when he questions just how often a gun in civilian hands actually does any good. The only situation I can imagine is when you hear someone trudging through your house at night and you can get to the living room silently enough to get the drop on him. And still the outcome would be difficult to predict.

Not being born in a country where it's a constitutional right to own a gun, it's as alien to me as a native greeting where you both put your fingers in your ears and bash your foreheads together. But when I hear gun discussions going on, the pro side sooner or later starts sounding like insane, paranoid hermits living in a shack in the woods away from civilization, that's plotting to kill them. Like you all sleep with one eye open and a hand on the gun beneath your pillow, ready to jump out and spray the room with bullets at the first unlucky burglar that tries to breach your kingdom. Not to mention the kind of paranoia when you say you don't trust only the government with the right to bear arms. What, they're going to declare national martial law and enslave everyone to the salt mines of Xyr the moment everyone's forced to turn in their glocks?

[Preechr]

Uh huh. If someone's so fucking determined to get into your house and arm themselves while doing so, chances are they'll be coming for you long before you gear up for battle like in the intro to Operation Wolf and step into the foyer to take the law into your own extremely capable hands.

I don't ever anticipate having to shoot someone in my home. As I said, I bought the gun because I was leaving a woman unattended there during the daytime, and I didn't like the idea of her having to defend herself from an attacker with a lamp in a worst case scenario. Just shooting the floor would likely scare away an intruder.

As for your scenario, it's pretty simple the way I see it. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I can either have a gun to protect myself and my family, or not. To not have one is to place a higher priority on the intruder's life than my own. Living alone now, I can take that risk and give my gun to my cousin.

You try to make it sound like anyone that chooses to own a gun is some sort of unhinged idiot. I'm trying to explain to you that responsible gun ownership can be a logical and practical option. If I had kids, I'd factor that into my decision of course. I survived 30 years without the need to play Rambo. I don't fit in the catagory you'd like to place me in. While I know people that do, I'd like you to consider for a moment that many people own guns for other reasons than those you can easily dismiss.


Uh huh. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, am i right guys. Thing is? When you want to hurt someone and you have a gun, chances are that at least one of you won't be able to hurt anyone again.

We obviously view criminals from a different point. To me, a law abiding person, a criminal is a threat... not just to me but to society in general. Any man that would break into someone else's house is either extremely stupid or high, and I don't trust those people to make responsible decisions regarding me or my family, or even my stuff, once they've committed themselves to intruding upon my home. If I see someone like that on the street, I might pity them or wonder what led them to where they are in life. In my home, all I care about is that I have no idea what's on that person's mind other than he's clearly prioritizing my safety lower than whatever it is he's after.

I see no need to give the criminal an advantage over me.

He may have a knife or a boomerang. I want a gun.

I don't know how you'd enforce an import ban, and I get the feeling that you don't either. The notion that people would suddenly become incredibly curious hobbyists concerning guns the moment they're illegal is silly at best, and retarded at worst. I'd also think that someone's Colt PVC .Potatoe caliber rifle would be at least somewhat less effective than the real deal. If it wasn't, why wouldn't we all be making this shit in shop class?

I don't believe an import ban can work in America. It hasn't worked with drugs.

I picked a potatoe gun because it's easily found on the internet and about the simplest weapon to build. The point is that while you and I, as responsible citizens, have to go to work every day and do other responsible stuff, a criminal has nothing better to do but sit around and figure up new and better ways to get what he wants by force. If we somehow successfully collected all guns from the world, a criminal would still find a way to threaten decent people, and I'd still want a gun to protect myself.

Well, shit, let's just throw down and urinate on the goddamn constitution! It doesn't matter anymore, boys! The police know and understand that we Americans are genetically pre-disposed to thwarting authority - which I am to understand is a direct cause of our propensity to unload a clip on anything that can bleed - and really, come on, did they expect us to follow all these fucking laws they keep passing? As an American, I have a right to pick and choose which laws I follow and which ones I DISMISSIVELY TUMBLE DOWN A MUDDY EMBANKMENT AS A RESULT OF ME NEVER, EVER BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR A SINGLE ACTION IN MY LIFE SINCE WE'RE ALL SUCH NE'ER-DO-WELLS ANYWAY!

Saying that you shouldn't prevent people from doing bad shit because at some point someone's gonna break the law is like saying you shouldn't drink water because you're eventually gonna have to urinate. Use some common sense and try to cry less about how someone's trying to silently maneuver past your guards, checkpoints, and ball pit in a premeditated effort to slit your fat mom's throat.

Sorry. Kinda got caught up in the moment there.

No problem... You're funny when you get mad. We apparently also seem to be at odds when it comes to the Constitution. Where I come from, the Constitution is a set of limitations to the power and scope of government, not me. My rights are born within me, not granted by the state. The Constitution is my agreement with the state that I will be a good citizen as long as we keep this understanding: Here is a list of things you should do for me, Uncle Sam, and here's a bunch of stuff you can NEVER do.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

See? TJ agrees with me that the right to bear arms is just as important as all that other crap. He even calls it a DUTY, and I couldn't agree more. Yes, the times have changed since then and we are no longer a frontier... but criminals are much more common now than Injuns, bears and cougars ever were. Governments have also learned new tactics of fascism and totalitarianism that were unheard of at the time but luckily not unforeseen.

I feel like I'm repeating myself, so I'll quit trying to explain this to you. It's obvious that you, FS and kahl didn't look at that link I gave you. You should, unless you want to go on believing all that made up crap about the dangers of an armed citizenry. It's all footnoted and stuff. You'll like it.

[ziggytrix]

I think Chojin makes a very valid point when he questions just how often a gun in civilian hands actually does any good. The only situation I can imagine is when you hear someone trudging through your house at night and you can get to the living room silently enough to get the drop on him. And still the outcome would be difficult to predict.

Not being born in a country where it's a constitutional right to own a gun, it's as alien to me as a native greeting where you both put your fingers in your ears and bash your foreheads together. But when I hear gun discussions going on, the pro side sooner or later starts sounding like insane, paranoid hermits living in a shack in the woods away from civilization, that's plotting to kill them. Like you all sleep with one eye open and a hand on the gun beneath your pillow, ready to jump out and spray the room with bullets at the first unlucky burglar that tries to breach your kingdom. Not to mention the kind of paranoia when you say you don't trust only the government with the right to bear arms. What, they're going to declare national martial law and enslave everyone to the salt mines of Xyr the moment everyone's forced to turn in their glocks?

I tend to agree, but in the US it IS a constitutional right, and not one of those ones they tacke don later, but one that they thought was so important, they only wroote 1 amendment before they got to the one about letting citizens own the same weapons our soldiers do.

And that toally is the point. Amendment 2 in the Bill of Rights was written with the intention that our government wouldn't be able to tyrannize us with its military. It was written so that the US could never become a police state.

And if you don't like it, you should probably save up and move to a country that has a less paranoid birthright, because as many restrictions as may get passed, firearms will never be banned in the US.


Amendment 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.

[Zebra 3]

Prohibition is prohibition, and it never works in this country. We still have slavery, in the form of illegal immigrants; discrimination against women and minorities; and plenty of drugs, despite all our well-intentioned prohibitions. It has nothing to do with addiction, but I'll argue criminal behavior is a form of addiction if you want...
:lol - Prohibition is prohibition, slavery is slavery, discimination against women and minorities is well, discrimination against women and minorities.

[HNICPantitude]

The 17 states and the District of Columbia without concealed-carry permits enjoy an 81 percent higher rate of violent crime. Their restrictive gun laws produced 1,400 more murders, 4,200 more rapes, 12,000 more robberies, and 60,000 more aggravated assaults.

[The One and Only...]

"I was hunting in Iowa last year with a sheriff from one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us, and said, "See the house over? We just did a drug bust a week earlier, and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him."

Because of the president's decision today, law enforcement officers will walk into a place that will be more dangerous. Terrorists can now come into America and go to a gun show and, without even a background check, buy an assault weapon today.

And that's what Osama bin Laden's handbook said, because we captured it in Afghanistan. It encouraged them to do it. "


What now bitches. Also, weapons can be easily modded to be a fully automatic weapon. Oh, and also, bush himself also said that there weren't enough background checks.

LEARN TO FUCKING LISTEN, for fucks sake, you guys are idiots. You shouldn't even be online arguing, you dyslexic pieces of shit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1013.html

I did listen. That isn't the full quote.

Also, fully automatic weapons can be made pretty easily from any gun, or even from spare parts.

[JPR]

You need to factor in for the fact that America is simply a much larger country than either Japan (an island) or the UK (another island) and we are in the uneviable position of having to guard many hundred times more border than they doYes, every night the people of da 'Isles all go out to the coast and hold hands, building a human ring around our wonderful land to stop any guns coming into the country.

[Preechr]

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:oDhn4u5eLeMJ:http://www.couttsinfo.com/group/misc/UK.gif
http://www.co.rockland.ny.us/corner/cimg/usa.gif

and that's not even to scale.

STFU

[kahljorn]

"I did listen. That isn't the full quote. "

Oh, Okay, so there's a part missing where he goes, "TERRORISTS BUY AK47's AT GUN SHOWS". DO you mind showing me where this happens?

[El Blanco]

Not to mention that most of the English coast is too rocky to just come up to with a boat. Thats why there is only one major port city.

[kahljorn]

"I did listen. That isn't the full quote. "

Oh, Okay, so there's a part missing where he goes, "TERRORISTS BUY AK47's AT GUN SHOWS". DO you mind showing me where this happens?


"KERRY: I believe it was a failure of presidential leadership not to reauthorize the assault weapons ban.

I am a hunter. I'm a gun owner. I've been a hunter since I was a kid, 12, 13 years old. And I respect the Second Amendment and I will not tamper with the Second Amendment.

But I'll tell you this. I'm also a former law enforcement officer. I ran one of the largest district attorney's offices in America, one of the ten largest. I put people behind bars for the rest of their life. I've broken up organized crime. I know something about prosecuting.

And most of the law enforcement agencies in America wanted that assault weapons ban. They don't want to go into a drug bust and be facing an AK-47.

I was hunting in Iowa last year with a sheriff from one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us, and said, "See the house over? We just did a drug bust a week earlier, and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him. "

Because of the president's decision today, law enforcement officers will walk into a place that will be more dangerous. Terrorists can now come into America and go to a gun show and, without even a background check, buy an assault weapon today.

And that's what Osama bin Laden's handbook said, because we captured it in Afghanistan. It encouraged them to do it.

So I believe America's less safe.

If Tom DeLay or someone in the House said to me, "Sorry, we don't have the votes," I'd have said, "Then we're going to have a fight. "

And I'd have taken it out to the country and I'd have had every law enforcement officer in the country visit those congressmen. We'd have won what Bill Clinton won. "

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004d.html

DAMN, IT MUST BE A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!!!!

[MetalMilitia]

I cant be assed to read all the quoteing and whatnot ^^ up there but anyway.

Wtf i think if terrorists from other countries wanted to buy AKs it would be somewhat easier to get them in places like iraq ect and cheaper too.
I mean what kind of terrorist is going to think 'hey if we can get into america we can get false identies, then go to a gun show and undergo a background check then mabey, just mabey we can get a couple of AKs for a shit load of money.'
in reality it would proabbyl be more liek 'hey we could pick up a couple of AKs from some russion dude i know in the middle east, he says he'll thow in a free RPG if we buy 10 AKs.'

[kahljorn]

"And that's what Osama bin Laden's handbook said, because we captured it in Afghanistan. It encouraged them to do it."

Your guess is as good as mine why they do that.. maybe it has something to do with the cost it would take to Smuggle it into the country being about the same as it would cost to just buy guns here?

Not all gun shows have background checks, even BUSH SAID THEY DONT DO ENOUGH BACKGROUND CHECKS.

[Crying Baby Jesus]

Khaka?

You can buy Variants of just about any AK weapon in north america, you can buy M16 that use .22 ammo, and semi-automatic sub machineguns such as the uzi. Just remember WHO's gonna buy these all BEFORE the terrorists. You'll all be better armed than they will

Nobody should even be responding to you, but this was too good to pass up. I'd like to see you take on anyone carrying an ordinary handgun, with an automatic weapon or rifle. You'd probably kill half your family and still leave a villain-shaped silhouette in the wall before you'd get capped. Like it fucking matters what version number's on the barrel of your gun when you face a criminal (who's probably a lot more guns than you). A bullet it still going to come out of both if you pull the trigger, and if it's a whole lot of bullets you'll need the luck of hitting the criminal on the first burst, cause the rest of the magazine is going to be wasted.

i'm getting a Berretta 92F when I move out, then hopefully a AR-12

And maybe you'll learn to masturbate with your left hand so you can use your right to cock the gun at the moment of climax, you Rambo you.


I think Chojin makes a very valid point when he questions just how often a gun in civilian hands actually does any good. The only situation I can imagine is when you hear someone trudging through your house at night and you can get to the living room silently enough to get the drop on him. And still the outcome would be difficult to predict.

Not being born in a country where it's a constitutional right to own a gun, it's as alien to me as a native greeting where you both put your fingers in your ears and bash your foreheads together. But when I hear gun discussions going on, the pro side sooner or later starts sounding like insane, paranoid hermits living in a shack in the woods away from civilization, that's plotting to kill them. Like you all sleep with one eye open and a hand on the gun beneath your pillow, ready to jump out and spray the room with bullets at the first unlucky burglar that tries to breach your kingdom. Not to mention the kind of paranoia when you say you don't trust only the government with the right to bear arms. What, they're going to declare national martial law and enslave everyone to the salt mines of Xyr the moment everyone's forced to turn in their glocks?

WTF are you talking about? You can only buy SEMI-Automatic weapons I don't see how I could waste an entire magazine. Plus I AM in fact a good shot, Scary huh? A stupid person proficcient with weapons.

[kahljorn]

Semi automatic weapons can be converted to and from automatic.

[Anonymous]

Blanco: I think the fundamental thing you fail to understand is that I personally don't care if you have a gun. Telling people on a case-by-case basis to not have weapons is silly because the availablity is still there. As long as you are able to legally own a gun, go nuts with planters Peanuts. I don't think people SHOULD be legally allowed, but since they are, it certainly may come down to a 'necessary evil' to own one, if for no other reason than increasing your chances of survival by 1%. I don't think it'll do much good, the only reason I'd get one is to shoot at targets on a range or to use as a prop in movies. And again, as long as I have that right, I'm going to go ahead and exercise it, whether or not I think it's a good idea for everyone else to.

But through all of this talk about how you're the safest guy in the world to buy a handgun to protect your girlfriend and so on and so forth, you aren't the American I'm worried about. It's the average american, with their average IQ of 100, that concerns me with deadly weapons.

The point is that while you and I, as responsible citizens, have to go to work every day and do other responsible stuff, a criminal has nothing better to do but sit around and figure up new and better ways to get what he wants by force. If we somehow successfully collected all guns from the world, a criminal would still find a way to threaten decent people, and I'd still want a gun to protect myself.
I think your view of criminal behavior shares a little too much in common with the 'life of crime' career in The Sims. Most criminals aren't career criminals, and most that ARE wouldn't bother themselves with rifling through your belongings.

No problem... You're funny when you get mad. We apparently also seem to be at odds when it comes to the Constitution. Where I come from, the Constitution is a set of limitations to the power and scope of government, not me.
I've been coming to this site since 1999 because I like to make fun of people to blow off steam. If I were honestly upset by your meandering emotional responses, I'd have bust an artery after trying to talk reason with Vince a few times.

Okay, so, not the constitution. Laws. It's a lot easier for the purposes of a joke to pretend all laws come from a single document, and I'd figured you'd have either picked up on that or seen it as a golden opportunity to be hilarious - Sadly, the outcome was neither. A criminal is no different from a citizen except in the fact that they choose to break the law. This doesn't make them any more dangerous than you. Criminals have rights, too, and while they don't have the right to break into your house and kill your family and dog, they do have the right to a fair trial, which is exactly what they'd get if you popped a cap in them and didn't 'finish the job'.

I looked at your link, and will tell you for the third time that it doesn't make sense. For me to believe whatever facts it's going to throw at me, it has to first appeal to my common sense. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe it. Canada is in no way a more violent nation than the United States. To think otherwise is unfathomably ridiculous.

The 17 states and the District of Columbia without concealed-carry permits enjoy an 81 percent higher rate of violent crime.
If you're going to take away weapons, it has to be a national effort. Otherwise, it'll just become an opportunity.

Wtf i think if terrorists from other countries wanted to buy AKs it would be somewhat easier to get them in places like iraq ect and cheaper too.
If you'd read the thread before applying your valuable input, terrorists don't only come from little sandy nations and wear garb otherwise seen in Disney's Aladdin. There are plenty of terrorists right here at home to whom going abroad to get weapons would be a bigger pain than getting them here. You might have heard about these people, considering it's the entire rationale behind the Patriot act. After all, if you're actually planning to terrorize the US, there isn't a better place to do it than from within the US.

Preechr: Fantastically accurate and thought-provoking image, Preech. Here are some stats you probably already know, being the extremely profound child prodigy you are.

Japan
Area: 377,576 Sq Km
Population: 126,994,100
Annual gun-related murders: 15

UK
Area: 244,103 Sq Km
Population: 58,991,500
Annual gun-related murders: 30

US
Area: 9,372,608 Sq Km
Population: 271,290,000
Annual gun-related murders: 9,390

Gun Murders per 100,000 Km (in 1997)
Japan: 3.97
UK: 12.29
US: 100.19

Gun Murders per 10 million citizens (in 1997)
Japan: 1.18
UK: 5.08
US: 346.12

Is that a little more illuminating? The US is 38 and 1/3rd times larger than the UK, yet has 313 times the amount of gun-related annual deaths. But they are more likely to nick your school lunch card, so really, which is the bigger evil am i right guys.

[MetalMilitia]

Japan
Area: 377,576 Sq Km
Population: 126,994,100
Annual gun-related murders: 15

UK
Area: 244,103 Sq Km
Population: 58,991,500
Annual gun-related murders: 30

US
Area: 9,372,608 Sq Km
Population: 271,290,000
Annual gun-related murders: 9,390

Gun Murders per 100,000 Km (in 1997)
Japan: 3.97
UK: 12.29
US: 100.19

Gun Murders per 10 million citizens (in 1997)
Japan: 1.18
UK: 5.08
US: 346.12

Sucks to be american.

[Preechr]

Ummm... My point of comparing the size of the countries was to illustrate that while gun control might be practical on a tiny little island like the UK or even a marginally less tiny island like Japan... Wait... Is this where I'm supposed to be hilarious? Ok ok ok...

I get it.

http://www.i-mockery.net/images/emoticons/lol2.gif ...and other such mockery.

I'm not worried about career criminals plotting to steal my VCR as much as I'm worried about the average lazy idiot that decides it's easier to risk his life stealing stuff than it would be to get a job.

I agree with you on your point that ANYONE can own a gun for ANY reason is a bit scary, and even from a libertarian POV I can't read the 2nd Amendment and see where it says right to keep and bear arms and also stockpile them secretly. It's somewhat creepy to know my neighbor might have enough weaponry to arm his own Delta Force and none of the rest of us in the neighborhood has any right to know about that.

On the other hand, government databases that pinpoint the locations of every firearm in the country violates the 2nd in that it was written specifically to guard against government swinging authoritarian as well as to afford protection from ciminals when the government isn't doing it's job.

[hilarity break] :domo [/hilarity break]

I don't know the answer and I'm not sure there is one. Violence is too ingrained in humanity to offer any hope of us ever living in a peaceful world. Somehow this got twisted around to be something other than the "Kerry pretty much just flat out lied" discussion I'd intended. I'm not a "gun-nut" so I don't have the proper motivation to offer a good defense. I'm a reluctant gun owner that's bored with this non-argument now.

For me to believe whatever facts it's going to throw at me, it has to first appeal to my common sense. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe it.

Except maybe for that...

But I'll leave it for later.

[Zebra 3]

:( - There's a smell of Vinth in this thread...

[kahljorn]

All you stupid bitches got bitch slapped! You dyslexic fucks! KERRY SAID YOU CAN BUY AKS BOOHOOO.

Now it's turned into a debate for gun control, that's an improvement. Sort of the eternal arguement, though, of if it's better to attack your enemies before they attack you-- the chicken or the egg? Guns for everyone or guns for none?

[The One and Only...]

"I did listen. That isn't the full quote. "

Oh, Okay, so there's a part missing where he goes, "TERRORISTS BUY AK47's AT GUN SHOWS". DO you mind showing me where this happens?


"KERRY: I believe it was a failure of presidential leadership not to reauthorize the assault weapons ban.

I am a hunter. I'm a gun owner. I've been a hunter since I was a kid, 12, 13 years old. And I respect the Second Amendment and I will not tamper with the Second Amendment.

But I'll tell you this. I'm also a former law enforcement officer. I ran one of the largest district attorney's offices in America, one of the ten largest. I put people behind bars for the rest of their life. I've broken up organized crime. I know something about prosecuting.

And most of the law enforcement agencies in America wanted that assault weapons ban. They don't want to go into a drug bust and be facing an AK-47.

I was hunting in Iowa last year with a sheriff from one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us, and said, "See the house over? We just did a drug bust a week earlier, and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him. "

Because of the president's decision today, law enforcement officers will walk into a place that will be more dangerous. Terrorists can now come into America and go to a gun show and, without even a background check, buy an assault weapon today.

And that's what Osama bin Laden's handbook said, because we captured it in Afghanistan. It encouraged them to do it.

So I believe America's less safe.

If Tom DeLay or someone in the House said to me, "Sorry, we don't have the votes," I'd have said, "Then we're going to have a fight. "

And I'd have taken it out to the country and I'd have had every law enforcement officer in the country visit those congressmen. We'd have won what Bill Clinton won. "

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004d.html

DAMN, IT MUST BE A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!!!!

Did you even read the quote?

It's obvious that Kerry implied that an AK47 is an assault weapon that can now legally be purchased. If he weren't, the comment about the AK47 would have been entirely irrelevant.

[kahljorn]

Thats the problem-- I read, and listened

People have paragraphs and sentences for a reason-- it's a debate. They say plenty of things all at once, on a related topic, because they have a time frame(Maybe you noticed that when the guy said, "You have ninety seconds). They are related. Would you like the definition of related? It was about gun control, mentioning a SITUATION or EXAMPLE in which a bad guy had an assault weapon is something called intelligent debating. Then later mentioning why it has been allowed to happen... what the fuck man, you need to learn how to read and listen. I feel sorry for you if you can't tell these things apart.

You're exactly the kind of sucker they look for in a human being.

Like I said, I have this CRAZY ability to listen to people and understand what they are saying, maybe that's why I'm not a halfwit who starts threads like, "KERRY SAID YOU CAN BUY AK47'S", when that's cleary what he didn't say at all. You know how i know? Because he didn't say, "Terrorists buy their ak47's from america!" , now maybe if it had said that you'd have a valid point, but other than that you're just going, "LOOK THE PARAGRAPHS ARE NEXT TO EACHOTHER ITS A CONSPIRACY" "OH GOD LOOK THESE TWO BOOKS ARE NEXT TO EACHOTHER IN THE BOOK STORE ITS A CONSPIRACY".

OH SHIT, BUSH AND KERRY STOOD NEXT TO EACHOTHER IN THE DEBATE. WHAT THE FUCK, ITS A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY! THEY MUST HAVE BEEN TALKING TO EACHOTHER OR SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! I SHOULD WRITE A FUCKING BOOK AM I RIGHT.

[The One and Only...]

I understand that he didn't directly state it. However, it's blatantly obvious that's what he wants you to think. If you honestly cannot see how Kerry was trying to mislead America with that comment, then I pity you.

[kahljorn]

I MISLEAD AMERICA BY PUTTING SENTENCES NEXT TO EACHOTHER! PLEASE INPEACH ME!

You know, you used the word 'I' and 'mislead' next to eachother! You must be trying to mislead me! I FIGURED OUT YOUR PLAN.

[Preechr]

A question then: Is Bush responsible for the polls that at one time showed that 70% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with the planning and/or implementation of the 9/11/1 attacks?