|By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 01:56 pm: Edit|
I have questions about why the NRA is supporting the ban. Would lifting the ban make it easier for terrorists to get weapons or does it matter?
|By Yackityack (Yackityack) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 02:04 pm: Edit|
I'm a moderate conservative and am certainly not anti-gun, but yes I support the ban.
|By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 02:25 pm: Edit|
Maybe I missed the part about the NRA supporting the ban. That would be amazing if they did.
I tend to support the ban, but I don't think it really has anything to do with terrorism. As one politician (Rudy perhaps) said, "the least of our worries regarding terrorists is if they come at us with assault weapons."
|By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 02:27 pm: Edit|
I'm for the ban. I mean, who really needs a millitary-grade weapon? I'm not very conservative on guns.
|By Escafandrasteve (Escafandrasteve) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 02:35 pm: Edit|
apparently 1 bullet at a time is no longer enough to protect ourselves..
...no sir I do not feel safe packing anything that fires less than 15 bullets per second.
I mean really what is next? Should grenade launchers be legal in order to "better" protect ourselves?
|By Dstark (Dstark) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 02:38 pm: Edit|
Fundingfather, this ban, if my memory serves me, came about because of this...
Sen Feinstein really pushed for this ban.
I can't believe this law was allowed to expire without an uproar.
|By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 02:48 pm: Edit|
duh I meant NOT supporting the ban!(NRA)
President Bush says he supports the ban, but he's done nothing to urge Congress to extend it.
so is this one of those instances where "if you ain't for me, you're agin' me"?
|By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 03:04 pm: Edit|
Dstark, thanks. I don't know the heritage of the law, but I remember when it was passed that it seemed reasonable, just as it would be reasonable to extend it. I personally wish that Bush would throw more support behind extending the ban. However, it is a bit of a leap to equate this ban with terrorism since terrorists are not likely to come after us with assault weapons.
|By Dstark (Dstark) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 03:08 pm: Edit|
You don't have to equate this ban with terrorism in any way. You can still support the ban.
Looks like most people do support the ban.
|By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 03:20 pm: Edit|
Maybe I should have asked, "Who is a terrorist"?
They've changed the definition of terrorist. In fact the Patriot II Act redefines terrorism so vaguely and broadly it's not a great leap to envisage the definition including political activists or just about anyone who belongs to an organization that disagrees with the Administration.
Greenpeace for example. It stands for non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems and their causes. While Greenpeace is adamant it does not endorse sabotage it's really only a matter of definition, especially since the organization has simulated sabotaging safety at nuclear facilities.
And given that Bush specifically stated that the death penalty should be used in certain cases of sabotage against military and nuclear facilities, it's not difficult to see how Greenpeace could be ruled a terrorist organization, transforming your membership into material support. A little extreme perhaps? Not if you consider the FBI arrest of peaceful protesters exposing an illegal shipment of mahogany. Or the dubbing of acts of vandalism by the Earth Liberation Front (they spray-painted slogans such as "greed and sloth" on SUVs) as domestic terrorism. Or the ability under Patriot II to conduct all manner of surveillance without warrants; authorize secret arrests, detentions, and grand jury subpoenas; create DNA databases of those suspected of association with terrorism or terrorist groups; and to enable the Government to remove citizenship from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups.....
|By Yackityack (Yackityack) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 03:27 pm: Edit|
Its not just the Republicans who are failing to get the ban renewed. The Democrats don't want to offend the NRA a few months before the election either. No one is really doing anything. Can't blame one particular party on this.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 04:31 pm: Edit|
Against the ban.
AWB only banned cosmetic differences on assault weapons, definitions were constantly skewed. Anyways, post-ban assault rifles increased in sales during the ban and gun crime went down.
AWB did not affect terrorists buying assault rifles, considering you can already buy post-ban weapons or on the black market at much cheaper prices.
AWB did not affect criminals, only legal gunowners.
We've already discussed this topic much in depth in a previous post.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 04:33 pm: Edit|
Though I am for gun control in the form of registration, background checks, and locks; the AWB was an extremely vague and ineffectual ban that did not impact the sales of assault rifles or gun crime or the threat of "terrorists getting these guns"
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 04:55 pm: Edit|
"apparently 1 bullet at a time is no longer enough to protect ourselves...no sir I do not feel safe packing anything that fires less than 15 bullets per second"
Ignorant Post ALERT. Seriously though, 15 bullets per second?? You described a machine gun, which is already banned under the National Firearms Act of 1934. They have been, and still are illegal for non-class 3 dealers and licensers.
Maybe you should actually read the AWB before you talk about it. The AWB bans only semi-automatic (which shoot ONE BULLET per Pull of the trigger JUST like a shotgun or pistol) weapons with regards to certain cosmetic differences. It had just about no impact on the sales of assault weapons during its time.
How bout we all look at the AWB thread made a while back and then judge for ourselfs. It is pointless having this argument all over again.
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|