What could be WORSE than bush?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

What a damn choice, I voted for Bush last time because I did not want Al Gore, and this time I do not want Kerry. If a real canidate stood a chance I would vote for them, or if Kerry slides enough in the polls I will likely vote libertarian. It has been a long tim since I voted for someone rather than against their opposition... :(

[dotcoma]

Originally posted by VXerick,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (VXerick,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-roxdog, Yes. And seeing how congress folds quicker than a cheap lawn chair, I don't think that matters. Bush has stated he'll sign it and that he believes it is necessary for our security. Have you seen they want to add all .50 caliber rifles onto it? This shit is getting out of hand. You have people that don't know anything about guns writing legislation and people that SHOULD know about them saying they will sign onto it.

Unfortunately there is neither a backbone nor a Constitutionalist among any of them. [/b][/quote]
You got a few, Ron Paul for one...

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon, What a damn choice, I voted for Bush last time because I did not want Al Gore, and this time I do not want Kerry. If a real canidate stood a chance I would vote for them, or if Kerry slides enough in the polls I will likely vote libertarian. It has been a long tim since I voted for someone rather than against their opposition... :(

Vote for who represents you. Your vote won't make a difference anyway, unless it comes down to a single vote. If you live in California, Minnesota (my home), or New York, they'll go to Kerry anyway. Texas, Wyoming, hell most of the midwest, are generally solid Bush states. Only in a battleground state will your vote even possibly make a difference.

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by roxdog,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (roxdog,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-bugsbunny04, Al Gore would really be pressing Assault Weapon Ban renewal.

Uhhh, Bush has stated he'll reaffirm the assault weapons ban.[/b][/quote]

That is 100% accurate. My point was that Bush just is just saying he will sign it if it reaches his desk, he is not begging congress to put it there. Do I like it? Hell no, but Gore would be pressing the issue, Bush is being like, "whatever."

[dotcoma]

No, Bush is saying that he'll reaffirm it. He's not say like, "whatever". Most of his neocon buddies are for it just like the liberals.

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by roxdog, No, Bush is saying that he'll reaffirm it. He's not say like, "whatever". Most of his neocon buddies are for it just like the liberals.

I heard his tone, it sounded like a little freshman player telling me "whatever." There is difference between "If you put the thing on my desk, I'll sign it." and "Please hurry up and get it on my desk so I can sign it ASAP."

Bush aint doing the latter.

[dotcoma]

His buddies at the Office of Homeland Security are...

[Mia]

Originally posted by demidog, Aaron Russo for President

Are you the one who got me on his e-mail list? The messages are bugging me.

[Mia]

What's wrong with a ban on assault weapons?

[dotcoma]

It's a violation of the 2nd amendment.

[PhanthomOps]

Hey:

How come Al Sharpton wasn't on the list?? Is someone biased here??
I was just curious - I personally think he is a worthless as T-ts on an iceberg. :) :) :)

My selection - well let's see:
1) Al Gore,
2) John Kerry (AKA Ted Kennedy Clone / who does the fence jump better than a pack of monkeys swinging through the trees),
3) Tom Daschle,
4) Ted Kennedy to mention a few.

On the assault weapons subject - first a little background for those who don't know me:
1) I am a DAV (USAF) combat trained and experienced in all manner of weapons
2) I am an Endowment Life member of the NRA
3) I am a licensed owner of a .45 cal Colt Mark VII Combat Commander Stainless Steel handgun
4) I am in agreement with and support the NRA's position on the II Amendment.

The NRA does not do personal background checks, does not issue weapons licenses of any kind, and does not sell weapons.

However, with the confrontational attitude prevelant in the US today, and all the unclassified nut cases running around, I personally feel that Assault Weapons should be restricted to the Law Enforcement Departments and the Military.

Just consider the general road rage, and someone jumps out of their car and shoots another just because they cut them off. What would happen if that nut case had an assault weapon, how many people would then be involved???

[dotcoma]

Even better of a reason to have one. Because other "nuts" have them.

[PhanthomOps]

roxdog:

Quote: "Even better of a reason to have one. Because other "nuts" have them."

Could this lead to civil war in the streets????

Okay, I'm trained, experienced, mentally and emotionally capable in handling an assault weapon, as I'm sure thousands are.

Shouldn't there be some kind of restriction involved in issuing such a license beyond the "personal background check"

[dotcoma]

Why would the simple existance of guns create or lead to a civil war? The Chinese have been bringing Ak47s into L.A. since the 80s and no one stops them. Even more of a reason for us to have them.

[dotcoma]

And no, I don't believe one should have to get "licensed."

[PhanthomOps]

roxdog:

Smuggling weapons is difficult to stop, just like drugs.

I would venture a guess that there are quite a number of people who are licensed handgun owners, and don't know where the saftey is let alone how to accurately fire it.
What would happen if these people could unrestrictedly purchase assault weapons.

I live in New York City (Queens), and you would be surprised at all the crime where simple handguns are employed. What would Law Enforcement run into if these criminals are sporting assault weapons, which normally out guns the regular police on patrol.

[dotcoma]

Smuggling weapons is difficult to stop, just like drugs.

Maybe the CIA should stop shipping them in then.

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by PhanthomOps, Hey: How come Al Sharpton wasn't on the list?? Is someone biased here?? I was just curious - I personally think he is a worthless as T-ts on an iceberg. :) :) :)

I didnt even think of that dumb racist f*ck, and it is not concievable that he would ever sit behind the big brown desk with a big red button under it in that big white house, because I believe, in spite of the chicken sh*t behavior of the chicken sh*t press that wont stand up to him and his black supremesist cronies, most people see through his racist bull sh*t like a window that has been cleaned with Invisible Glass.

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by Mia, What's wrong with a ban on assault weapons?

It is a ban on certain firearms based, not on lethality, but on appearance. They did not ban anything based on how good a killing machine a gun is, the banned them because they "look scary." They basically lied to the public and blatantly used sound bites that made people think we were talking about automatic weapons, which in fact have been strictly controlled since 1934. People who have very little knowledge of firearms fell for it. The weapons are no different in lethality than weapons of the same design that lack the features that "look scary."

They also banned magazines that hold an excess of ten rounds. It is a defense issue. Anybody who has ever been in a lethal force confrontation as I have knows that you as much ammo as possible with the fewest reloads possible. That goes back to concealed carry and the fact that people who dont want to be responsible for themselves because they are too chicken shit, are jealous of folks who have the courage to be independent and want us to be prevented from having what they cant have.

The fact is, it is mostly symbolic. Aside from magazine capacity, firepower has not actually been effected. However, the symbolism is important and it is this:

If the guns are allowed to be the way they were before, we the people are able to have something different from what soldiers have only in that it does not fire full auto. Right now, it cant have the cosmetic features. And the other excuse for it is that the features are "non sporting", and technically, that is correct, these weapons are designed for defense against two legged predators and invaders that have the will and means to inflict harm on us, not against defenseless ducks that are in the wrong part of aereal real estate, and it goes back to people who, since they are too timid to defend themselves, and they are at the mercy of criminals, they think everybody else should be too. Did I mention that the supreme court has ruled: A, gun control laws do not apply to convicts, by their fifth amendment right against self incrimination, they are exempt from a background check that would reveal them to be attempting to violate the 1968 gun control act which makes it illegal for a convict to have a gun., and a state supreme court has ruled that police are not responsible for your defense, they mearly investigate crimes and arrest people, that is their responsibility.

Personally, I think it is as much a free speech issue as a gun issue, I mean, they are banning guns on appearance, If I want my guns to look military to express my whatever, why should I not be allowed to.

Here is the main point: Gun control, by ruling of the supreme court, cant apply to criminals, because of the fifth ammendment, and the police are not obligated to protect you, only arrest those who violate you, and thats after the incident.

So, therefore, self-defense is a legitimate argument for gun ownership. In that case, how can you ban something becasue it is designed for self defense? If you ban weapons designed for self defense, you are saying that self-defense is not a legitimate reason for ownership.

So, since banning guns because they "look scary", and banning guns because of what they are designed for, even though they are designed for a legitimate purpose are both bull shit. That is what it is about, they are designed for defense, and they look scary.

The other argument is that they are "prefered weapons of criminals". Bull shit also. Criminals do not prefer semi auto AK lookalikes. Criminals prefer the easy to get on the black market full auto AKs that were illegal to begin with.

Another emerging argument is that they are the "preferred weapons of terrorists" See the argument above, but include in the third sentence Heavy Machine Guns, sub machine guns, semtex plastic explosive, RPGs, grenades, and SCUDs of every variety including nerve gas, anthrax, and nuclear equipped. This one is even more laughable, considering acres of uncontrolled outdoor weapons piles in Iraq, that are an abundunt source of all those things for those who are eroding the ranks of our ground forces.

I know it is sort of jumbled but it is a complicated issue, like a lot of things.

[PhanthomOps]

roxdog:
Quote: "Maybe the CIA should stop shipping them in then."

One thing they do not have to do is smuggle them into the US.

Buggsbunny04:
Quote: "I didnt even think of that dumb racist f*ck, and it is not concievable that he would ever sit behind the big brown desk with a big red button under it in that big white house, because I believe, in spite of the chicken sh*t behavior of the chicken sh*t press that wont stand up to him and his black supremesist cronies, most people see through his racist bull sh*t like a window that has been cleaned with Invisible Glass."

Neither do I, I shudder even at the thought. He did however, come up with a good point - loosly stated - "You invite us to the party, wine and dine us, and don't even bother to take us home" Even though he is racist, etc....... this does apply to the majority of people, not just the ones of color.

Quote: "Personally, I think it is as much a free speech issue as a gun issue, I mean, they are banning guns on appearance, If I want my guns to look military to express my whatever, why should I not be allowed to."

If I'm not mistaken, they even want toy makers not to make guns look so realistic, even water guns - Go figure, I guess they are afraid you might drown someone.

Quote: "I know it is sort of jumbled but it is a complicated issue, like a lot of things."

Yes it is a complicated issue, only because wimps are afraid and make it that way.