Page 3 of 9
Posted: 9/12/2004, 3:14 pm
by nelison
I don't think guns can be banned actually. Wouldn't a gun company be able to sue the government for its lost profits under chapter 11 of NAFTA?
Posted: 9/12/2004, 3:27 pm
by hpdfk
It's interesting to watch this topic. And see EVERYONE be against the right to hold an automatic weapon. Some people here are for the right to bear arms, or at least have provided an argument for the right to bear arms. But no one here wants to justify a civilian's right to own an automatic weapon. If there is a proper argument, I have no idea what it would be.
If Bush renewed the ban, he'd still have the NRA on his side. Between him and Kerry, he's still their candidate of choice. There's a place where you draw the line and I think Bush overshot it.
Posted: 9/12/2004, 7:58 pm
by Rusty
xjsb125 wrote: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.
Violence on tv has little to do with it. Most of us have seen bowling for columbine. Biased as it was, I won't say it wasn't biased everything has some form of bias. But it is true that many countries watch violent movies and play violent games and have violent pasts. Yet they don't have such high murder and crime rates and some have large populations. I agree people should be taught that guns are not the answer, and aren't they? Or do parents not tell kids that VIOLENCE is not the answer anymore these days? If it wasn't so easy to get guns then there would be less gun related killings. No guns, no gun related violence.
Posted: 9/12/2004, 8:21 pm
by closeyoureyes
hpdfk wrote:If Bush renewed the ban, he'd still have the NRA on his side. Between him and Kerry, he's still their candidate of choice. There's a place where you draw the line and I think Bush overshot it.
I would be mortally shocked if the NRA ever backed a democratic candidate.
Its just never going to happen.
Posted: 9/12/2004, 8:32 pm
by xjsb125
Outlawing guns isn't going to stop gun related violence and crime. People shouldn't give up their right to own a gun because someone else is irresponsible with one. There's no way to 100% safeguard against gun related crime. Laws that are more strict may be fine, but I disagree with completely taking them away.
Posted: 9/12/2004, 8:44 pm
by Rusty
Guns are made for one purpose killing. Rifles and shotguns I hate guns with a passion but fine i can see hunting I guess, handguns should be for police officers only to defend themselves. Automatic weapons on the other hand, are made for one purpose only. To kill People. They are not designed for sport hunting, or recreational target practice, they are made to kill people. Civilians do not need something made for the sole purpose of killing people.
Posted: 9/12/2004, 9:21 pm
by nelison
That's a really stupid thing to say. I'll merely give one example to disprove that entire post. Skeet Shooting.
Posted: 9/12/2004, 9:53 pm
by I AM ME
he's not serious right?
Posted: 9/12/2004, 10:15 pm
by nelison
I misread his post. My apologies as there was a valid point in that post.
Posted: 9/12/2004, 10:33 pm
by I AM ME
Posted: 9/13/2004, 2:20 am
by xjsb125
Rusty wrote:Automatic weapons on the other hand, are made for one purpose only. To kill People..
Automatic weapons have no place outside of the military. I agree that particular type of weapon should not be allowed. I never once went to a gun range and saw someone shooting a fully automatic rifle.
Posted: 9/13/2004, 3:52 am
by I AM ME
so why exactly ae you American's allowing him to make owning a AK 47 legal?
It's your country damn it, not his. the people can choose what happens in their country, and if most of you don't agree with it stop him then. People need to realize that he's YOUR president, you arn't his subjects. He needs YOUR aproval
Posted: 9/13/2004, 7:47 am
by Soozy
Given that we're all agreed that assualt weapon ban should be renewed, everyone who hasn't yet done so should go to:
http://www.tomspetition.org/
and sign the petition there. Basically it's been set up by the father of one of the children killed at Columbine and calls for the ban to be renewed.
Although by nature it's aimed at US residents, anyone not living in the US can do what I did and find a zip code to put in!
Posted: 9/13/2004, 3:24 pm
by Bandalero
I AM ME wrote:so why exactly ae you American's allowing him to make owning a AK 47 legal?
It's your country damn it, not his. the people can choose what happens in their country, and if most of you don't agree with it stop him then. People need to realize that he's YOUR president, you arn't his subjects. He needs YOUR aproval
don't you get it, politicians are not subject to ridicule by the masses. it's going to take a radical to give the power to the people. that.....is where i come in.
oh yeah, and they have fully automatics at some shooting ranges, you can shoot an ak-47 at a range in san antonio for 30 bucks a clip.
i'm just curious, if most canadians were to write to your prime minister about the bullets a canadian company makes and sells to the US government, would he listen to you, or would he listen to the company who might give him a little money to drown you out?
Posted: 9/13/2004, 3:35 pm
by xjsb125
That would be damn expensive. The assualt weapon ban had too many legal loopholes. I believe some states drafted stricter legislation that went above the federal mandate. Sean, you are right. Something like this has to start at a local level and have a dedicated politician to back it and push it to the top. It's a very doable thing, people just need the initiative to do it.
Posted: 9/13/2004, 8:40 pm
by nelison
Bandalero wrote:I AM ME wrote:so why exactly ae you American's allowing him to make owning a AK 47 legal?
It's your country damn it, not his. the people can choose what happens in their country, and if most of you don't agree with it stop him then. People need to realize that he's YOUR president, you arn't his subjects. He needs YOUR aproval
i'm just curious, if most canadians were to write to your prime minister about the bullets a canadian company makes and sells to the US government, would he listen to you, or would he listen to the company who might give him a little money to drown you out?
According to our local member of parliament, a letter sent to the Prime Minister concerning an issue is considered a letter from 100 citizens. Basically they believe that if one person sends a letter, than at least 100 others must feel the same way about it. Whether that would persuade a government I'm not sure, but I do feel as though the Canadian government is much more accessible.
Posted: 9/13/2004, 8:54 pm
by I AM ME
I agree too, Canada seems to have less lobby groups and outside intrests then America. Also our prime minister's hold is so tenuous right now that he's not going to anger anyone he doesn't have to. Hell he even did the hip-flip with Narduar, just to get in with Canada's youth.
About the Automatic Weapons in the shooting range too, keep in mind you love in Texas
Posted: 9/14/2004, 1:42 am
by Bandalero
right, like your prime minister has the guts to piss off the employees at that factory so that he won't get elected. i mean after all you did say it.
and you know damn well there are other shooting ranges all over the US that allow you to fire an assult rifle, to just assume it's a texas thing is pretty canadian of you.
Posted: 9/14/2004, 10:45 am
by I AM ME
it's not just a Texas thing, but it's an American thing, but it's much more prevelent in the Southern States, such as Texas.
and the PM will bow to whoever has the bigger voice, factory workers do not have a bigger voice in Canada then the rest of the public. As i said Canada isn't without external influences in politics, but it's nothing near as bad as American politicians with corporate intrests
Posted: 9/14/2004, 11:38 am
by Bandalero
and what research would you base this generalization of the south on?
it's not just factory workers, it's their families that need that source of income. its the city that needs that factory operational for the sake of the city and it's economy. you would rather throw familes out into the street and dent a city's economic structure because you do not like who buy's their bullets.