Right to bear...AK-47s?

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 9/11/2004, 8:44 pm

I dont mind guns if its for like, target practice and that. I think its relatively easy to get a gun for hunting and stuff.. but Its alot more difficult if you want it just because. Its hard to get a gun license here. I think though, thats a good thing.

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 9/11/2004, 9:02 pm

Sine wrote:I fucking Hate Charlton Heston. He had a gun rally in Columbine a week after the shootings. What a belligerent asshole.

Actually. He didn't hold a gun rally. What was held in Denver that week was the NRA Annual General Meeting which had been planned a year in advance. Firstly, the annual general meeting HAD to be held as it is a legal requirement for the association and with so many members, it couldn't be rescheduled or postponed. Secondly, the annual general meeting is usually a week long festival. All festivities were cancelled, the only thing that ran that week was the annual general meeting.

I'm no gun fan. I'm no NRA fan. But I fucking hate Michael Moore and the lies that he tells. ^^ that's the truth of the matter.

Sorry not lies... gross deception

hpdfk · Post by **hpdfk** » 9/11/2004, 9:05 pm

Axtech wrote:Well, they seem to think that they won't get enough votes to ban it.

So it's not just Bush, it's the whole damned government.

Bush said he would sign a renewal if it passed through congress.

However, he doesn't want to lose NRA sponsorship, so he's not pushing the house for a renewal either. And since Republicans control the legislative branch, the president gets what the president wants.

I fear for people in the inner city when gang members get their hands on assault weapons. They accidently hit enough bystanders with handguns, think about how many people will die at the bullet of automatic fire.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 9/11/2004, 11:09 pm

Korzic wrote:
Sine wrote:I fucking Hate Charlton Heston. He had a gun rally in Columbine a week after the shootings. What a belligerent asshole.

Actually. He didn't hold a gun rally. What was held in Denver that week was the NRA Annual General Meeting which had been planned a year in advance. Firstly, the annual general meeting HAD to be held as it is a legal requirement for the association and with so many members, it couldn't be rescheduled or postponed. Secondly, the annual general meeting is usually a week long festival. All festivities were cancelled, the only thing that ran that week was the annual general meeting.

I'm no gun fan. I'm no NRA fan. But I fucking hate Michael Moore and the lies that he tells. ^^ that's the truth of the matter.

First of all, He doesnt LIE. Or else he would have been caught out.Just because you keep saying he does, doesnt mean it will make it any more true. :wtf:

Second of all, Yeah, the NRA thing had been previously planned, but do you not think he could have cancelled it out of some respect for the families of children who were Shot by the same easy access guns that Heston so proudly supports. Ironically, the person who was most blamed for Columbine[Marilyn Manson] cancelled his Denver concert[Scheduled For a Week Later] out of respect.

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 9/12/2004, 12:47 am

www.bowlingfortruth.com its all there. the Annual General Meeting is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT. And 10days notice to send out a memo to 4 million members? I dont think so.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 9/12/2004, 1:05 am

So I guess that the massacre of teenagers at a school by guns wouldnt be enough. It would be enough for anyone with a conscience.

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 9/12/2004, 1:54 am

I'm not going to say anything more on this. it's pointless

Soozy · Post by **Soozy** » 9/12/2004, 7:38 am

What I really don't understand is why the original assault weapons ban was created to expire after 10 years. If you think they're a bad thing and need to be banned then surely that ban should be permanent, or at least permanent until someone comes along with a whole new law and justification to stop it (not that I think that such a thing's possible, but in theory that option's still there) and goes through the process of getting that law enacted. I just can't get my head around why the law should suddenly expire after a set period of time.

Does anyone know why?

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 9/12/2004, 7:47 am

I think most (all?) such things are given an expirey just in case something should come up that would require the ban to end ... it'll automatically end in 10 years. However, I think it was done under the assumption that the ban was logical enough to continue to pass until the ban needed to be lifted for some reason.

I guess Clinton just didn't see Bush coming.

This is just one more reason why sponsership sucks.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 9/12/2004, 8:44 am

Indeed. Hell its like basic training if civilians can carry around assault rifles. They'll be good and ready for deployment with very little training needed.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 9/12/2004, 8:45 am

Jesus, don't say that. Next thing we know we'll be hearing that as an argument why letting the ban drop is a good thing.

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 9/12/2004, 9:45 am

What I dont understand is why assault rifles submachine guns etc were allowed to be purchased by civilians in the first place. Sure I understand the right to bear arms but the right to overkill? I'm glad I live where I do, safe in the knowledge that you have to go thru hell and back even to obtain a shooting pistol.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 9/12/2004, 10:53 am

i love Canada's gun laws. I feel SAFE walking around here. The only recent gun related incident i can think of it that nutcase down in union station who shot his wife with a sawed off shotgun. Civilians do not need guns, sure it can be argued you need them for protection, but if other people didn't have guns you wouldn't need it for protection. I think it's too easy to get a gun in the states. Like that bank that gives you a gun if you get an account. Does anyone see anything wrong with that or is it just me? Or what about K-marts(i think it was K-mart correct me if i'm wrong) selling ammo. You can go buy some diapers for you kid, and a couple rounds of ammo to shoot some stuff up all at once, how convienient. I think there should be strict laws on buying BULLETS. Like give background checks on them too, and make sure they have a gun and stuff. I know people are gonna say that takes a long time to do and stuff, well if you want to go hunting so badly whats wrong with planning ahead a little?

Post by **xjsb125** » 9/12/2004, 12:16 pm

You are misinformed. Businesses in the US must have a federal firearms license before they are allowed to transfer a firearm to anyone. Furthermore, every time that business transfers that firearm, the buyer must complete a federal or state criminal history check. All sales must have the buyer complete a 4473 form and if the state requires it, an additional state form. After the forms are completed, the business has to contact a state or federal criminal information center and let them process the information. Most of the time an instant approval is given, or the sale is placed on a delay if the buyer is flagged on the computer. In Virginia the buyers information is ran through 7 or 8 databases that search criminal as well as mental history. The government agency will contact the business within 3 working days with an approval or denial. If you are not contacted after 3 days then the business may transfer the firearm without Government approval. At Wal-Mart, we do not transfer the firearm until we receive approval from the Govt. agency. I have seen the state police come to the store to arrest people who are trying to buy guns unlawfully. K-Mart tried to phase out its gun business a few years ago, and I don't know if they stopped all together. Wal-Mart is the US's largest seller of firearms. The management of each store, along with the sporting goods department and any sales clerks who might work in sporting goods from time to time must be retrained 3 times a year on firearm procedures. If we mess up a gun sale, we lose our jobs and face possible federal fines and legal action on the manager and/or sales clerk who sell the gun. Some states do require criminal history checks before purchasing ammunition. I agree with planning ahead. Whenever customers would call me about buying a gun, I would always inform them of what documentation I needed to verify who they are, and that there could possibly be a delay in the sale.

Private transactions between citizens is where guns fall into the wrong hands of people. Theft is also a reason. Private transactions have laws that citizens are supposed to follow, but many do not follow them, are unaware of them, or just don't care. I hope I cleared up the misunderstandings you had.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 9/12/2004, 12:20 pm

That was pretty informative.

Do you feel as though the right to bear arms is good for the country?

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 9/12/2004, 12:32 pm

I should of course make reference that Australia lays claim to the largest mass killing spree by a gunman. But thats what happens when in a gunmen lets loose in a popular tourist attraction. :/ Port Arthur... Lest we forget

Post by **xjsb125** » 9/12/2004, 12:35 pm

Good question. It's a double edge sword I suppose. On one hand you are reducing the possibility of violent crime and fear. But on the other hand you are denying people the freedom to own for the purpose of sport/recreation, as well as eliminating thousands of jobs (gun manufacturers, ammo manufacturers, optics manufacturers, etc). I guess I'm really torn on that question.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 9/12/2004, 1:11 pm

You wouldn't be eliminating any jobs. I'm sure the military still needs guns to be made and tested and plenty of ammunition for that. Besides is killing such a good past time anyway? Even with all the background checks and stuff (I'm fully aware of them by the way) doesn't mean that some very non-violent, perfectly sane guy couldn't have something happen to suddenly trigger a violent reaction from him. Maybe his work really sucks and all the other workers pick on him (it happens don't pretend it all stops in highschool) and one day he just thinks "I've had enough." Then blows the crap out of everywhere with his nice new gun.

Post by **xjsb125** » 9/12/2004, 1:39 pm

Yes, but the government doesn't purchase guns from every major manufacturer in the country. Savage Arms, a major manufacturer, is actually based in Canada. Not only are you elminating the jobs of those who manufacture, but you would be losing the jobs of gunsmiths and those who manufacture aftermarket products for those guns as well. The government is not going to employ all those people. And of course something could set a person off and they could go on a killing spree. People take fits of violence all the time. Maybe if people were taught at young age that guns aren't the answer for their problems, and guns weren't glorified in tv shows and action cartoons, people would grow up with different idea of how to solve thier problems.

Soozy · Post by **Soozy** » 9/12/2004, 2:32 pm

Think of all those healthcare jobs that would be lost too with no shooting victims to have to treat.

I don't think that loss of jobs is an adequate justification for allowing people to have guns.