NationStates Jolt Archive

"My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam," Kerry tells Outdoor Life in its October issue. "I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle."

The Kerry campaign dodged questions on their candidate's illegal weapon, with spokesman Michael Meehan telling the New York Times only that his boss was a registered gun owner in Massachusetts. Meehan said that Kerry had been unable to respond to questions about his banned weapon because his voice was too hoarse. The Kerry aide refused to return follow-up calls.

John Kerry owns an illegal assault rifle, yet doesn't believe anyone should own an assault rifle. That's another double standard from this idiot.

Maybe I should give consideration to that 'One item of partisan bullshit per day' ruling.

This place is already too liberal for anyone to start editing our words.
And this isn't bullshit it's the truth. Go read the New York Times.

Question. Does the assault rifle actually work? As far as I'm aware, a license isn't required for weapons put beyond use. Hell, many people I know have old WW2 weapons and stuff as souveniers from their service.

Now, because I'm living in the UK Im not up to date on US gun laws, so, if I'm wrong I don't mind being corrected.

I also believe that many weapons got "grandfathered in". Kerry would've had the weapon before the law went into place, so it doesn't apply.

Question. Does the assault rifle actually work? As far as I'm aware, a license isn't required for weapons put beyond use. Hell, many people I know have old WW2 weapons and stuff as souveniers from their service.

Now, because I'm living in the UK Im not up to date on US gun laws, so, if I'm wrong I don't mind being corrected.

Considering he is dodging the issue, I'd have to guess it's a working weapon. As far as I know Kerry has several guns in his collection, mostly Chinese, as he also recieves campaign funds along with gifts from their communist government.

AK-47's or SKS's aren't illegal. Period. Neither are M-16s.
The so-called assault weapons ban is a misnomer; the weapons are only restricted. Nonfuctioning souvenirs and the extremely old (pre-1900 or so) are not restricted at all.

Going by my state of Virginia, the only outright banned weapon is the Stryker-12 shotgun.
Allow me to elaborate on my state's gun control policies.

Assault rifles, are legal, provided that they have a magazine capacity of no more that ten rounds (note that this applies to all weapons), no suppressor mount, (you can apply for a permit) and are not capable of automatic fire. Explosives, missile launchers, mortars, grenades and other types of military hardware are also illegal.
Ages:
Long rifles and shotguns are legal to purchase at the age of eighteen. Long rifles include civilian model assault rifles.
Handguns are legal to purchase at the age of twenty-one. A minor can hold title to and inherit weapons, but may not own until they are an adult.

Permits: Concealed carry weapons permit (CCW) can be obtained at the minimum age of twenty-one and are applicable to handguns only. This requires proof of ownership, citizenship, a background check and fifty dollars.

Concealed Carry: Concealed carry is very tightly defined as: if you can't see it by looking at a person, it is concealed. Thus, a woman's purse is concealed. A gym bag is concealed. The glove box is concealed. The hip is not concealed, provided that you are not wearing a jacket that will cover the weapon. The dashboard and the seats are not concealed.

Open Carry: Open carry is the opposite of concealed carry. Anyone may open carry; no permit is required.

Concealed carry without a permit is a felony.

Felonies: Anyone convicted of a felony is not allowed to own or carry a weapon. They cannot purchase weapons. This right can be restored after a certain time and upon application.

You must attend a state-approved gun safety course before you can purchase a weapon.

That's all I can think of right now. If you have something to add or a correction, don't hesistate.

Currently, it is illegal to bring home your personal weapon from the war - during Desert Storm most guys would claim they lost their Desert Eagles just so they could sneak one home. Distribution of working assault weapons are illegal when distributed via mail services. It adheres to the laws of "air mail", for obvious reasons.

AK-47's or SKS's aren't illegal. Period. Neither are M-16s.
The so-called assault weapons ban is a misnomer; the weapons are only restricted. Nonfuctioning souvenirs and the extremely old (pre-1900 or so) are not restricted at all.

Going by my state of Virginia, the only outright banned weapon is the Stryker-12 shotgun.
Allow me to elaborate on my state's gun control policies.

Assault rifles, are legal, provided that they have a magazine capacity of no more that ten rounds (note that this applies to all weapons), no suppressor mount, (you can apply for a permit) and are not capable of automatic fire. Explosives, missile launchers, mortars, grenades and other types of military hardware are also illegal.
Ages:
Long rifles and shotguns are legal to purchase at the age of eighteen. Long rifles include civilian model assault rifles.
Handguns are legal to purchase at the age of twenty-one. A minor can hold title to and inherit weapons, but may not own until they are an adult.

Permits: Concealed carry weapons permit (CCW) can be obtained at the minimum age of twenty-one and are applicable to handguns only. This requires proof of ownership, citizenship, a background check and fifty dollars.

Concealed Carry: Concealed carry is very tightly defined as: if you can't see it by looking at a person, it is concealed. Thus, a woman's purse is concealed. A gym bag is concealed. The glove box is concealed. The hip is not concealed, provided that you are not wearing a jacket that will cover the weapon. The dashboard and the seats are not concealed.

Open Carry: Open carry is the opposite of concealed carry. Anyone may open carry; no permit is required.

Concealed carry without a permit is a felony.

Felonies: Anyone convicted of a felony is not allowed to own or carry a weapon. They cannot purchase weapons. This right can be restored after a certain time and upon application.

You must attend a state-approved gun safety course before you can purchase a weapon.

That's all I can think of right now. If you have something to add or a correction, don't hesistate.

It depends on which State you're in; you can own an assault rifle in Kentucky, but if you cross the river into Ohio it becomes illegal. I know people in Kentucky that have hunted coyotes with assualt rifles.

It was also illegal in the vietnam era to bring home souvenier weapons of the war, just as an fyi.

Know several people who did it anyway, and commented on the lengths they had to go to to get an AK back here.

If you plan on leveling such an incriminating accusation as "John Kerry owns an illegal assault rifle", the least you could do is provide a link or some evidence to that effect.

Now, to the real point of your statement.
If you make assault rifles generally accessable- as they are- then they WILL end up in the hands of criminals. Our law enforcement officiers are SCARED TO DEATH of the end of the Brady Bill. More police WILL die because of it.

This is not a second amendment issue. It is NEVER necessary that the public own assault rifles.

Maybe I should give consideration to that 'One item of partisan bullshit per day' ruling.
If you do, be sure that you apply the same standard to the numerous "Bush is evil" "Bush is a monkey" threads as well.
The moderators are already very biased, and it doesn't need to get worsened.

John kerry on gun control?

IF he is elected, I will buy my first weapon. Such is the extent that I am convinced he will try to limit the 2nd amendment. His statement during the debate that the gov't "gives" us our rights shows me he has a complete misunderstanding and disregard for the constitution. WE the people grant the gov't rights....not the other way around.

This statement alone shows me the man is not qualified to be the President.

This is not a second amendment issue. It is NEVER necessary that the public own assault rifles.

Wrong.

I usually hate people who say things like that, but the fact is, that's just incorrect.

The reason the public must have the ability to own assault rifles is simple: There must always be the option of violent rebellion against the government.

History has shown us time and time again that a group of people with assault rifles in their own territory can, through guerrilla tactics, form an effective resistance against a better trained and equipped force. That is the purpose of the second amendment. They had just gained independence through rebellion, and they wanted to allow their descendents this option as well. As is made plain in the Declaration of Independence (It's not a legal document, but you can see what they were thinking).

John kerry on gun control?

IF he is elected, I will buy my first weapon. Such is the extent that I am convinced he will try to limit the 2nd amendment. His statement during the debate that the gov't "gives" us our rights shows me he has a complete misunderstanding and disregard for the constitution. WE the people grant the gov't rights....not the other way around.

This statement alone shows me the man is not qualified to be the President.

Well, the gov't does give us rights- to the extent that it limits its own ability to restrict our freedoms. I guess it would be more appropriate to say that the gov't recognizes and enforces certain rights it believes we have inherently...

John kerry on gun control?

IF he is elected, I will buy my first weapon. Such is the extent that I am convinced he will try to limit the 2nd amendment. His statement during the debate that the gov't "gives" us our rights shows me he has a complete misunderstanding and disregard for the constitution. WE the people grant the gov't rights....not the other way around.

This statement alone shows me the man is not qualified to be the President.
Surely it's more; we the people, through the medium of government, say that these rights (whatever they may be) are the rights of all persons (within obvious limits). Government is just there to ensure the rights of the people are fulfilled in every case, rather than being a seperately existing body. (I'm in a rush I might reophrase this later)...

Wrong.

I usually hate people who say things like that, but the fact is, that's just incorrect.

The reason the public must have the ability to own assault rifles is simple: There must always be the option of violent rebellion against the government.

History has shown us time and time again that a group of people with assault rifles in their own territory can, through guerrilla tactics, form an effective resistance against a better trained and equipped force. That is the purpose of the second amendment. They had just gained independence through rebellion, and they wanted to allow their descendents this option as well. As is made plain in the Declaration of Independence (It's not a legal document, but you can see what they were thinking).

Why do you need assualt weapons to rebel against Govt? What about Shotguns, Pistols, etc. They are never banned. They do needa permoit but that is just common sense.

This is not a second amendment issue. It is NEVER necessary that the public own assault rifles.

It is necessary to own Hummer H1s, 65" TVs or *half pound* burittos at Taco Bell?

They can also all kill people... especially if you mix any 2 of them together! :)

biff : i would think this statement alone by Bush should SCARE you out of voting for him "uhh I think Putin is doing a good job."

you know putin right? the "democratically" elected "president" of Russia? former head of the KGB, currently jailing and otherwise silencing any opposition so he will be reelected in the next "election"

History has shown us time and time again that a group of people with assault rifles in their own territory can, through guerrilla tactics, form an effective resistance against a better trained and equipped force. That is the purpose of the second amendment. They had just gained independence through rebellion, and they wanted to allow their descendents this option as well. As is made plain in the Declaration of Independence (It's not a legal document, but you can see what they were thinking).

Non-Americans will never understand this. Why do countries like China and the former Soviet Union not allow their people to own weapons? Because the people would throw those bums out of power. THATS why we have the right to own firearms here.

Surely it's more; we the people, through the medium of government, say that these rights (whatever they may be) are the rights of all persons (within obvious limits). Government is just there to ensure the rights of the people are fulfilled in every case, rather than being a seperately existing body. (I'm in a rush I might reophrase this later)...

No...WE the people grant the gov't the powers it has. WE the people can change the government any time we want to. To assert that the gov't "grants" us our rights is to acknowledge that the gov't can then take those rights away as it sees fit. THAT is the fundamental difference.

biff : i would think this statement alone by Bush should SCARE you out of voting for him "uhh I think Putin is doing a good job."

you know putin right? the "democratically" elected "president" of Russia? former head of the KGB, currently jailing and otherwise silencing any opposition so he will be reelected in the next "election"

Yeah and Clinton said the same thing....plus Clinton awarded no-bid contracts to Haliburton as well in Bosnia and Kosovo....but Bush does it in Iraq and everyone goes apeshit. It is a funny world isn't it?

3 words about bush and no bid haliburton conflicts: conflict of interests

and clinton also said he disliked the military actions of russia agaisnt chechnya

No...WE the people grant the gov't the powers it has. WE the people can change the government any time we want to. To assert that the gov't "grants" us our rights is to acknowledge that the gov't can then take those rights away as it sees fit. THAT is the fundamental difference.

Read the "Patriot" Act lately?

It is necessary to own Hummer H1s, 65" TVs or *half pound* burittos at Taco Bell?

They can also all kill people... especially if you mix any 2 of them together! :)

No, but it is "necessary" to own a house that has more than 2 rooms? No, but it sure is nice. I have a 52 inch TV....but thats cause I like it, not because it is "necessary."

Read the "Patriot" Act lately?

Yep. and for the life of me I cannot find a single right that has been denied me.

Yep. and for the life of me I cannot find a single right that has been denied me.

That's because it hasn't been used on you. But it does give the government the ability to take away your rights at its discretion.

Read the "Patriot" Act lately?
just ignore biff, he likes to turn a blind eye to the shortcomings and actions of his own side so that he can hate the other side more and try to force the unfounded hatred on other people

Actually a shotgun makes for the best defense if you consider the ammunition is so easily made in your own home. I own a tactical 8.5 short barrel Mossberg 500. Along with the folding stock, I can carry 16 shells out of pocket.

I don't need some dumbass liberal telling me what gun I can own.

I do consider that the United States government will force Americans into a revolt. People are ignorant to believe that could never happen, but hell, maybe I want buy an automatic weapon just so I can shoot it sometimes.

3 words about bush and no bid haliburton conflicts: conflict of interests

and clinton also said he disliked the military actions of russia agaisnt chechnya

Possibly....but they are the only company out there with the experience to do the job. So who else do you turn to? Yes, and now we are hearing about Chechins crossing into the US from Mexico...wait till they strike here and see how wrong Clinton was there too.

Actually a shotgun makes for the best defense if you consider the ammunition is so easily made in your own home. I own a tactical 8.5 short barrel Mossberg 500. Along with the folding stock, I can carry 16 shells out of pocket.

I don't need some dumbass liberal telling me what gun I can own.

I do consider that the United States government will force Americans into a revolt. People are ignorant to believe that could never happen, but hell, maybe I want buy an automatic weapon just so I can shoot it sometimes.
If you have a permit , no liberal will care if you own one. :)

That's because it hasn't been used on you. But it does give the government the ability to take away your rights at its discretion.

Yet it is not permanent and will expire. The repeal of civil rights is nothing new in the US. Lincoln went further than the Patriot Act....as did FDR.

just ignore biff, he likes to turn a blind eye to the shortcomings and actions of his own side so that he can hate the other side more and try to force the unfounded hatred on other people

Actually my side is the Libertarian Party.....but I do disagree more with the Democrats than the Republicans on many issues but not all.

"My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam," Kerry tells Outdoor Life in its October issue. "I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle."

The Kerry campaign dodged questions on their candidate's illegal weapon, with spokesman Michael Meehan telling the New York Times only that his boss was a registered gun owner in Massachusetts. Meehan said that Kerry had been unable to respond to questions about his banned weapon because his voice was too hoarse. The Kerry aide refused to return follow-up calls.

John Kerry owns an illegal assault rifle, yet doesn't believe anyone should own an assault rifle. That's another double standard from this idiot.

Was this so-called illegal assault rifle made after... what was it underr the Brady Bill... 1998?

Yet it is not permanent and will expire. The repeal of civil rights is nothing new in the US. Lincoln went further than the Patriot Act....as did FDR.
That is right: Because we did evil before, let us do more now?
Have we learned nothing from history?

No, but it is "necessary" to own a house that has more than 2 rooms? No, but it sure is nice. I have a 52 inch TV....but thats cause I like it, not because it is "necessary."

That's my point... so keep your hands off my rifles!

Was this so-called illegal assault rifle made after... what was it underr the Brady Bill... 1998?

What does it matter?
He owns an assault rifle, yet he's telling the public they shouldn't.

Having to license guns is just creating a list for the government to hit first in the case of an actual conflict of interests.

Besides, if the ability to own guns is restricted further, how the hell am I supposed to defend myself against the criminals who didn't register their illegal military-style weapons? Let me be the judge of whether or not I need high explosives and assault-type weapons in my own home.

Yep. and for the life of me I cannot find a single right that has been denied me.

All that they have to do is unilaterally declare you a suspected terrorist and they can lock you up indefinitely without contact with a lawyer or even notifying your family. Not an Arab? Not a Muslim? Keep feeling safe then... for now.

Having to license guns is just creating a list for the government to hit first in the case of an actual conflict of interests.

Besides, if the ability to own guns is restricted further, how the hell am I supposed to defend myself against the criminals who didn't register their illegal military-style weapons? Let me be the judge of whether or not I need high explosives and assault-type weapons in my own home.
oh yes because the government doesnt already know where you live, where you shop, how old you are, what your religion is, where your spouse/kids work, your phone number, where your kids go to school, where you work, where your immediate family lives, what kind of car you drive,


but of course soon as they want you to register for the use of a deadly weapon, its a grievious invasion of privacy

Having to license guns is just creating a list for the government to hit first in the case of an actual conflict of interests.

Besides, if the ability to own guns is restricted further, how the hell am I supposed to defend myself against the criminals who didn't register their illegal military-style weapons? Let me be the judge of whether or not I need high explosives and assault-type weapons in my own home.

How about ricin? Anthrax? Briefcase nukes?

That is right: Because we did evil before, let us do more now?
Have we learned nothing from history?

You honestly see it as evil? I don't. It is just another law. ALL laws are restrictive in nature.

What does it matter?
He owns an assault rifle, yet he's telling the public they shouldn't.
You called it an illegal assault rifle. If it was made in the 1960s, it simply isn't. ...AFAIK... if there is a law against it, please cite.

You honestly see it as evil? I don't. It is just another law. ALL laws are restrictive in nature.
So you are saying that Civil rights law was restrictive? In a good way though. It protects things.
As does first amendament.

People againsr banning guns should realize its just a law if you use your argument.

All that they have to do is unilaterally declare you a suspected terrorist and they can lock you up indefinitely without contact with a lawyer or even notifying your family. Not an Arab? Not a Muslim? Keep feeling safe then... for now.

There has to be some sort of evidence that you are indeed involved in something. I am not going to buy into the idea that people will be picked up for no reason. I have both Muslims and Arabs in my family and they agree with the Patriot Act. In fact, they don't think we go far enough!! But they know better what we are up against.

So you are saying that Civil rights law was restrictive? In a good way though. It protects things.
As does first amendament.

People againsr banning guns should realize its just a law if you use your argument.

Not at all....gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the constitution. Any law put up to restrict outright such ownership would be deemed unconstitutional and would not stand up in court. You can legally own a full out machine gun if you want. All it takes is a background check and a $300 license fee and it is yours. I know a fellow who owns an M-60 legally. Is it necessary? No, but so what? Does he have to follow the rules for owning it....yes he does.

So you are saying that Civil rights law was restrictive? In a good way though. It protects things.
As does first amendament.

People againsr banning guns should realize its just a law if you use your argument.

The civil rights act was not a "law." It was a further guarantee of rights already granted us. It did away with restrictions that were in place by some states. Such as a "poll" tax that restricted voting rights.

Having to license guns is just creating a list for the government to hit first in the case of an actual conflict of interests.

Besides, if the ability to own guns is restricted further, how the hell am I supposed to defend myself against the criminals who didn't register their illegal military-style weapons? Let me be the judge of whether or not I need high explosives and assault-type weapons in my own home.

Are guns dangerous in the hands of people who don't know what they are doing?

YES.

Should society then be able to ensure that those buying guns know what they are doing?

YES.

Seems pretty easy to me.

in england last year the amount of gun deaths was 69 which is the highest ever.in america it was over 11,000 interesting fact for you their.

Are guns dangerous in the hands of people who don't know what they are doing?

YES.

Should society then be able to ensure that those buying guns know what they are doing?

YES.

Seems pretty easy to me.

I agree....I think gun safety classes should be mandatory for gun owners. We require it of drivers.

There has to be some sort of evidence that you are indeed involved in something. I am not going to buy into the idea that people will be picked up for no reason. I have both Muslims and Arabs in my family and they agree with the Patriot Act. In fact, they don't think we go far enough!! But they know better what we are up against.

No, there doesn't. That's the whole point - all they have to say is "we suspect that this person might have to do with something." They don't have to provide evidence.

Of course, the worst parts of the Patriot Act are being systematically struck down in the court system, so we'll probably whittle it down to size.

oh yes because the government doesnt already know where you live, where you shop, how old you are, what your religion is, where your spouse/kids work, your phone number, where your kids go to school, where you work, where your immediate family lives, what kind of car you drive,


but of course soon as they want you to register for the use of a deadly weapon, its a grievious invasion of privacy

No, when I register, it sets of the first alarm. I don't give a shit if the government knows where I live, where I shop, how old I am, what religion I'm not, what my phone number is, where I work, where my immediate family lives, or what kind of car I drive.

I care when they tell me that I can only own or operate a car made between the years of 1984 and 1992, must be American Made and have less than 8 cylinders. I care when they tell me I must go to court because they think I committed a crime and that the police officer's word is better than mine. I care when some pompous ass of a judge tells me that I deserve to be sentenced with 1200 hours of community service in addition to a $460 fine + $32 service fee in addition to giving up my rights to warrantable search and seizure, and that to not cooperate with any police officer would a violation of my parole and I can be arrested and charged with whatever it costs for me to subsist in jail. I care when I am old enough to fight and die for my country, vote for the President of the United States of America, am held responsible for my own actions, both morally and fiscally, but that I am not responsible enough to hold my own welfare in my own hands, that is to say that I am not responsible enough to make the decision whether or not to drink.

I am allowed to drive a car, provided I use it responsibly. I should be allowed to own deadly weapons. I can own a car without having a registration with my name on it,

[EDIT: Perhaps not drive the car, though ;)]

I should be able to own a gun without having my name on it.

I agree....I think gun safety classes should be mandatory for gun owners. We require it of drivers.

Ok then - we don't really disagree.

I have no problem with weapons (as long as they don't go beyond the gun level and into the rocket launcher/nuke level). I only ask that there be requirements in which you demonstrate your knowledge of gun safety and use.

I personally don't own a gun. Is it because I am completely anti-gun? No. It is because I have never had any sort of instruction on how to properly use/store/etc. a gun and I don't want one in my house unless I know the correct way to use it.

And as for assault weapons, etc. I think there should be levels of licensing, for which more dangerous guns have more stringent requirements (kind of like driver's licenses - where you need separate licenses for separate types of vehicles.)

The gun control issue is iffy in many ways.

It is an issue that the Neocons have stapled to there agenda to pick up the single issue voters that want to keep there hands on there guns (As is Abortion, Gay Rights, and in Some respect, religion, as I get the prevailing feeling that people see voting for Bush as being a good Christian).

Now yes, the Constitution does give us the right to bear arms and form a militia and all that, but that was back with muskets. Do I think assualt weapons should be illiegal. Well no, not really. But we do have to do something to curb back the gun culture that our country is sterotyped with.

To eye some of the arguments though, really, if you need more then 10 rounds in your handgun, your in the wrong gun battle for a civilian.

When was the last time you were mugged with a Kalashnikov? Or that a thief burglerized your house with a MAC-10 in tow? What are the chances that its really gonna fix on who gets the first shot off, and not who has the bigger gun?

Proper registration and licesing of firearms is nessacary in criminal matters, as weapons need to be traced.

USA PATRIOT Act=Bill of Rights being pissed on, in part. There were some good parts, but that one that us liberals keep fixating on is the most noteworthey from a civil rights stance.

Anycase. Thats all I have for now.

I can own a car without having a registration with my name on it,

Are you in the US? Because in the US, if you want to own a car and actually drive it, you *do* have to have a registration with your name on it.

in england last year the amount of gun deaths was 69 which is the highest ever.in america it was over 11,000 interesting fact for you their.

Yeah....we do have a lot of people killing others. However....when looked at WHO is being killed it gets very interesting. Over 80% of those are criminals killing each other so are those killings a drain on society? I think not, but thats just me. If one drug dealer kills another, I just see it as one less dealer out there. ;)

^
|
|
|
[edited: sorry, missed one]

No, there doesn't. That's the whole point - all they have to say is "we suspect that this person might have to do with something." They don't have to provide evidence.

Of course, the worst parts of the Patriot Act are being systematically struck down in the court system, so we'll probably whittle it down to size.

Checks and balances....the system works. However, as long as the population is armed, gross abuses cannot happen without the people having the right to make adjustments if needed.

I should be able to own a gun without having my name on it.
ok lets be fair then, sicne you can own a car without registering it as long as you dont use it lets do this. you can own a gun without registration. BUT you have to register your gun the first instance you intend to buy ammunition

But why register in the first place? If I commit murder with an assault weapon, a knife, or a frying pan, what does it matter? Somebody is still dead! I killed a man with an unlicensed frying pan, I should get an additional 30 days in prison?

But why register in the first place? If I commit murder with an assault weapon, a knife, or a frying pan, what does it matter? Somebody is still dead! I killed a man with an unlicensed frying pan, I should get an additional 30 days in prison?
and now we get into random ignorant protest from gun nuts

this level of purposefully stupid reasoning should be reason enough to force gun registration

Ok then - we don't really disagree.

I have no problem with weapons (as long as they don't go beyond the gun level and into the rocket launcher/nuke level). I only ask that there be requirements in which you demonstrate your knowledge of gun safety and use.

I personally don't own a gun. Is it because I am completely anti-gun? No. It is because I have never had any sort of instruction on how to properly use/store/etc. a gun and I don't want one in my house unless I know the correct way to use it.

And as for assault weapons, etc. I think there should be levels of licensing, for which more dangerous guns have more stringent requirements (kind of like driver's licenses - where you need separate licenses for separate types of vehicles.)

No, we don't really disagree.

I have never owned a gun myself either. However, I consistantly shot expert on both the M-16 and the baretta 9 mm when I was in the USAF so I have a knowledge of gun safety and use (at least on those 2 weapons). Owning assault weapons is highly regulated, at least for the fully automatic ones. Semi-automatic AK-47's are no more dangerous than a semi-automatic hunting rifle. In fact the hunting rifles are usually more powerful. It is the word "assault" that is the trigger.

Now, if Kerry is elected, I will be buying myself an "assault" rifle. Yes...fully automatic with 100 round drum magazines. Do I "need" such a weapon? Not right now, but who knows what the future might bring....

and now we get into random ignorant protest from gun nuts

this level of purposefully stupid reasoning should be reason enough to force gun registration

And how does gun registration reduce crime?

Don't insult my intelligence, as I haven't insulted yours.

[edit -- btw I don't own any guns, but I enjoy recreational use of both rifles and handguns.]

And how does gun registration reduce crime?

Don't insult my intelligence, as I haven't insulted yours.

[edit -- btw I don't own any guns, but I enjoy recreational use of both rifles and handguns.]
and how does registering a designedly lethal weapon an excessive abridgement of your rights?

I'm just looking for a study to show that registration of any types of guns actually reduces crimes. Perhaps a gun safety course at the time of firearm purchase would be an alternative if given that firearm related injuries are accident related. That is if gun safety were the reason for said registrations. I'm all for gun safety requirements, but not for registration, I cannot see the point.

I'm just looking for a study to show that registration of any types of guns actually reduces crimes. Perhaps a gun safety course at the time of firearm purchase would be an alternative if given that firearm related injuries are accident related. That is if gun safety were the reason for said registrations. I'm all for gun safety requirements, but not for registration, I cannot see the point.

That is if gun safety were the reason for said registrations
while your at it look for any case in history where registering firearms abridged people's rights because of it.

But why register in the first place? If I commit murder with an assault weapon, a knife, or a frying pan, what does it matter? Somebody is still dead! I killed a man with an unlicensed frying pan, I should get an additional 30 days in prison?

I think an assault rifle is just a bit easier to kill people with than a frying pan. I can't imagine a killing spree with a frying pan being very successful.

Otherwise, we should reccomend that the army adopt the frying pan as its standard assault weapon; it would save money on ammo, and they could cook dinner in it.

while your at it look for any case in history where registering firearms abridged people's rights because of it.

It is not a question of abridging anyones rights. It is a question of the government knowing who to round up in the event of a crackdown. The first place an invading force would go would be the gun registration forms so they too could round up those pesky fighters.

I'm just looking for a study to show that registration of any types of guns actually reduces crimes. Perhaps a gun safety course at the time of firearm purchase would be an alternative if given that firearm related injuries are accident related. That is if gun safety were the reason for said registrations. I'm all for gun safety requirements, but not for registration, I cannot see the point.

Well, crime was reduced significantly after the Brady Bill.

Now, nothing can directly attribute the drop in crime to the bill, but the correlation is interesting.

Personally, I think of registration/licensing for weapons the same way I think of cars. It is (a) for safety - ie. make sure you know what you are doing and (b) so that the law enforcement officials can ID you should you break the law.

I think most objections to gun registration stem from allowing the government to know who has guns and the, slightly paranoid, thinking that they may come take them away some day.

Me I'm burying mine, so they can't find them.. ;)

I think an assault rifle is just a bit easier to kill people with than a frying pan. I can't imagine a killing spree with a frying pan being very successful.

Otherwise, we should reccomend that the army adopt the frying pan as its standard assault weapon; it would save money on ammo, and they could cook dinner in it.

Eddie Izzard:
Guns don't kill people, bullets do! After all, if you went around pointing a gun at someone and yelled "bang!bang!" you would only kill the people with weak hearts. =)

I think most objections to gun registration stem from allowing the government to know who has guns and the, slightly paranoid, thinking that they may come take them away some day.

Me I'm burying mine, so they can't find them.. ;)
i have already outlined why that argument is ludicrous

Well, crime was reduced significantly after the Brady Bill.

Now, nothing can directly attribute the drop in crime to the bill, but the correlation is interesting.

Personally, I think of registration/licensing for weapons the same way I think of cars. It is (a) for safety - ie. make sure you know what you are doing and (b) so that the law enforcement officials can ID you should you break the law.

Where are you getting your information? And does it specifically state that the Brady Bill was responsible for the crime decrease?

i have already outlined why that argument is ludicrous

Hey I never said that people were rational... :D

Where are you getting your information? And does it specifically state that the Brady Bill was responsible for the crime decrease?

I got it from an article a while back, and if you would read my quote, I specifically stated that nothing directly states that the bill was responsible, only that the correlation was interesting.

Currently, it is the governments decision to disallow any person with felony on his/her criminal record to own/operate any firearm. What if this view changes to a person with any misdemeanor on his/her criminal record? What if it changes to any traffic violation? What then? Will only the "good" citizens be allowed to own guns?



Ayn Rand -
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

BTW, I live in the UK, and we have comparatively little gun crime (though it's rising). Now could this be because guns are banned? All that about guns for protection is shite. If guns are legalised, more criminals have guns.

BTW, I live in the UK, and we have comparatively little gun crime (though it's rising). Now could this be because guns are banned?

It's possible.....when things are banned or denied, people seem to want them more for some reason. When alcohol was prohibited in the 1920's the country went wild for the stuff. When the prohibition was repealed, it was not such an issue anymore.

in england last year the amount of gun deaths was 69 which is the highest ever.in america it was over 11,000 interesting fact for you their.

That's just because the English are so meek and girly.

Liskeinland

You don't have a gun, nor can you get one legally if you want one. If you do get one, you are breaking the law and can be put in jail.

If I want a gun, I can get one. Legally. And not be put in jail. If some asshole tries to steal my car with a gun, I'll blow his knee caps off with the sawed-off shotgun I have swing-arm attached to my door. (This is hypothetical of course, assuming I wanted a sawed-off shotgun)

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_racist.jpg

Ayn Rand -
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Oh, you're one of those.

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_racist.jpg


That's like saying that UN-imposed sanctions on Iran are communist.

in easier terms, Kerry is a fing idiot.

in easier terms, Kerry is a fing idiot.
Nice to see someone sticking to the original topic.

There has to be some sort of evidence that you are indeed involved in something. I am not going to buy into the idea that people will be picked up for no reason. I have both Muslims and Arabs in my family and they agree with the Patriot Act. In fact, they don't think we go far enough!! But they know better what we are up against.

Nope, there does not have to be any such evidence. The government can simply say "we have evidence, but national security and the safety of our deep cover agents prohibits us from telling what it is."

Nope, there does not have to be any such evidence. The government can simply say "we have evidence, but national security and the safety of our deep cover agents prohibits us from telling what it is."

Not that I doubt you, but I find it highly improbable that I or you would just be "picked up" for no reason at all. As much disdain as I have for the government, I am loathe to believe that would happen without cause. The ONLY people so detained, you must admit, have had some very dubious things about them. Padilla was hardly doing nothing and held without reason. An unemployed guy makes a trip to Pakistan and returns with plenty of cash and orders to blow up apartment buildings is more than deserving of being held.

The other guy who they just returned to Saudi Arabia was an American in name only. Although born in the US, his parents returned him to Saudi Arabia before he was a year old. He never returned until he was captured in Afganistan.

I am not worried about being picked up, nor should anyone.

Does anyone realize just how ridiculously simple it is to make a gun? It may not be accurate at 300 yards, but how many killings happen each year at a range of more than a few dozen feet? Even should the government for some asinine reason ban guns, criminals will still make guns to use. All it takes to make a good homemade gun is a little machining knowledge and the materials which aren't hard to come by. All it takes to make a simple gun that will do the job at point-blank is a good internet connection and a few simple household materials.

I think that gun safety should be taught in high schools. Not the freshman year, but more like second semester senior year. Heck, even the local cops could teach it. It wouldn't take much. That way people are given the knowledge they need to properly operate a gun as well as the respect that they should have for a gun. Also, it would fill a possible requirement for a safety class in order to purchase and license a gun. I would support that type of gun regulation whole-heartedly because it is positive instead of restricting.

I know the first argument against this notion is gonna be, "Why should we teach people things that can harm others, things that they might never even need?" We teach kids in the sixth grade how to have sex. We show them pictures of the sexual organs of the other sex, body parts that they have never seen. The government forces the schools to teach it. And guess what? Some of the kids in those classes will never have sex. But the government doesn't care about them, it just wants the people who will have sex to know the consequences and "proper" ways of doing it. These are kids that are only ten to twelve years old.

Why not teach people that are seventeen to nineteen years old skills that they can use throughout their lives should the need or desire ever arise? (Desire being to recreationally use a gun.) After all, most second semester senior year classes are seen as pointless by most of the students, so why not add a graduation requirement that is a class that actually teaches them something new and hands-on?

Does anyone realize just how ridiculously simple it is to make a gun? It may not be accurate at 300 yards, but how many killings happen each year at a range of more than a few dozen feet? Even should the government for some asinine reason ban guns, criminals will still make guns to use. All it takes to make a good homemade gun is a little machining knowledge and the materials which aren't hard to come by. All it takes to make a simple gun that will do the job at point-blank is a good internet connection and a few simple household materials.

I think that gun safety should be taught in high schools. Not the freshman year, but more like second semester senior year. Heck, even the local cops could teach it. It wouldn't take much. That way people are given the knowledge they need to properly operate a gun as well as the respect that they should have for a gun. Also, it would fill a possible requirement for a safety class in order to purchase and license a gun. I would support that type of gun regulation whole-heartedly because it is positive instead of restricting.

I know the first argument against this notion is gonna be, "Why should we teach people things that can harm others, things that they might never even need?" We teach kids in the sixth grade how to have sex. We show them pictures of the sexual organs of the other sex, body parts that they have never seen. The government forces the schools to teach it. And guess what? Some of the kids in those classes will never have sex. But the government doesn't care about them, it just wants the people who will have sex to know the consequences and "proper" ways of doing it. These are kids that are only ten to twelve years old.

Why not teach people that are seventeen to nineteen years old skills that they can use throughout their lives should the need or desire ever arise? (Desire being to recreationally use a gun.) After all, most second semester senior year classes are seen as pointless by most of the students, so why not add a graduation requirement that is a class that actually teaches them something new and hands-on?

You can teach gun safety to people
but you can't teach common sense to a liberal.

i dont think common crooks give that much of a fuck about armed robbery to make a gun. armed anything adds a good many years to your sentence when your ass is caught, why go throguh the trouble of learning and then making a gun? your ass better be wanting to kill some one.


your asinine reasoning is null in void in light of common sense

Not that I doubt you, but I find it highly improbable that I or you would just be "picked up" for no reason at all. As much disdain as I have for the government, I am loathe to believe that would happen without cause. The ONLY people so detained, you must admit, have had some very dubious things about them. Padilla was hardly doing nothing and held without reason. An unemployed guy makes a trip to Pakistan and returns with plenty of cash and orders to blow up apartment buildings is more than deserving of being held.

How can someone who says that their right to bear arms must be absolutely protected so that they can defend themselves against the government simultaneously say they don't believe their government will ever abuse power?

You can teach gun safety to people
but you can't teach common sense to a liberal.
too bad gun safety isnt a class, however you conservatives like to pretend telling kids to be abstinence and ignoring the teaching of the use of contraceptives works

How can someone who says that their right to bear arms must be absolutely protected so that they can defend themselves against the government simultaneously say they don't believe their government will ever abuse power?

I did not say that the gov't will NEVER or EVER abuse it's power. I just don't think in this instance that it has. People are NOT being rounded up ad hoc. If they are, I would be the first to shout about it.

too bad gun safety isnt a class, however you conservatives like to pretend telling kids to be abstinence and ignoring the teaching of the use of contraceptives works

That is always a funny one. I always tell my nephew to "wrap that rascal" cause I know abstinence is a myth.

Not that I doubt you, but I find it highly improbable that I or you would just be "picked up" for no reason at all. As much disdain as I have for the government, I am loathe to believe that would happen without cause. The ONLY people so detained, you must admit, have had some very dubious things about them. Padilla was hardly doing nothing and held without reason. An unemployed guy makes a trip to Pakistan and returns with plenty of cash and orders to blow up apartment buildings is more than deserving of being held.

The other guy who they just returned to Saudi Arabia was an American in name only. Although born in the US, his parents returned him to Saudi Arabia before he was a year old. He never returned until he was captured in Afganistan.

I am not worried about being picked up, nor should anyone.

So if an Arab comes back from an arab state and has money, he can be arrested and held without representation indefinately? "Plans for blowing up buildings"? You have a source for this? Was this paperwork? Or the assumption of plans in the mind?

Yeah, I am white and (arguably) christian, so I have nothing to worry about, right now, and nor do you. Great. Freedom for white Christians. Wonderful. Liberty is so nifty when it protects you, huh?

So if an Arab comes back from an arab state and has money, he can be arrested and held without representation indefinately? "Plans for blowing up buildings"? You have a source for this? Was this paperwork? Or the assumption of plans in the mind?

Yeah, I am white and (arguably) christian, so I have nothing to worry about, right now, and nor do you. Great. Freedom for white Christians. Wonderful. Liberty is so nifty when it protects you, huh?

The charges against Padilla were recently made public. They include conspiracy to blow up apartment buildings using existing gas lines.

I find what you have said to be ironic. My brother in law is Iranian and he thinks we are crazy for being so easy on this issue. He thinks we should go further than we are and you think we should go easier. I happen to think we are right in the ballpark on this one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5112715/

This guy is not just an everyday tourist as you seem to think.

“Padilla and the accomplice were to locate as many as three high-rise apartment buildings which had natural gas supplied to the floors,” the government summary of interrogations said. The alleged accomplice is in custody.

“They would rent two apartments in each building, seal all the openings, turn on the gas, and set timers to detonate the buildings simultaneously at a later time,” the papers alleged.

I did not say that the gov't will NEVER or EVER abuse it's power. I just don't think in this instance that it has. People are NOT being rounded up ad hoc. If they are, I would be the first to shout about it.

And our problem with the Patriot Act is that it makes it much easier for the government to abuse its power without many people taking notice.

And our problem with the Patriot Act is that it makes it much easier for the government to abuse its power without many people taking notice.

Possibly...and I am not saying that it cannot or won't happen, just that it hasn't and I don't think it will. Time will tell and having an armed populace will ensure that it won't get out of hand if it does happen. Those old dudes were actually pretty smart when you stop and consider what they created over 200 years ago. I think they covered just about all the bases given their times and technology available to them.

Discussion about the patriot act is all well and good, but what does it have to do with the question of Kerry's stance on gun control?

Discussion about the patriot act is all well and good, but what does it have to do with the question of Kerry's stance on gun control?

Honestly, since when do NS threads stay completely on topic? We have been discussing gun control as well.

too bad gun safety isnt a class, however you conservatives like to pretend telling kids to be abstinence and ignoring the teaching of the use of contraceptives works

Wow conservatives try to talk to their children
while liberals create laws for them.

Possibly...and I am not saying that it cannot or won't happen, just that it hasn't and I don't think it will. Time will tell and having an armed populace will ensure that it won't get out of hand if it does happen. Those old dudes were actually pretty smart when you stop and consider what they created over 200 years ago. I think they covered just about all the bases given their times and technology available to them.

No, Dem hit this one right on the head.

So the government hasn't (and I hope to god it won't) done anything to incite an armed rebellion. You (and I, just to be clear) still think assault rifles should be legal to own. It's a fail safe, in case, despite current trends.

This is the same reason we think the Patriot Act should be fixed up so it wouldn't allow innocent people to be held without due process. It hasn't happened yet (you assert), and it might not in the future, but we should still close the holes. As a fail safe, just in case.

And I think that the government has incited a rebellion. I'll fight for my civil rights until the terrorists, the gangsters and the police leave me the hell alone. That, or they're all dead.

And I think that the government has incited a rebellion. I'll fight for my civil rights until the terrorists, the gangsters and the police leave me the hell alone. That, or they're all dead.

Well, that is your right as a human being. I'm afraid, however, that you'll find the number of gun-owners sympathetic to your cause in your immediate area to be slightly below that necessary to make for a rebellion and not a lunatic on a shooting spree (which would only serve to degrade your cause of gun ownership, I might add).

Well, that is your right as a human being. I'm afraid, however, that you'll find the number of gun-owners sympathetic to your cause in your immediate area to be slightly below that necessary to make for a rebellion and not a lunatic on a shooting spree (which would only serve to degrade your cause of gun ownership, I might add).

The number of people required for a rebellion is one. Regardless of what anybody else says, one person can make a difference.

Wow conservatives try to talk to their children
while liberals create laws for them.

ROFL

"My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam," Kerry tells Outdoor Life in its October issue. "I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle."

The Kerry campaign dodged questions on their candidate's illegal weapon, with spokesman Michael Meehan telling the New York Times only that his boss was a registered gun owner in Massachusetts. Meehan said that Kerry had been unable to respond to questions about his banned weapon because his voice was too hoarse. The Kerry aide refused to return follow-up calls.

John Kerry owns an illegal assault rifle, yet doesn't believe anyone should own an assault rifle. That's another double standard from this idiot.

According to his office, he doesn't. An update on that story states that he never had the "exclusive" interview w/ Outdoor Life magazine. It was a questionaire filled out by an aide in the 1st person. They later recanted the story stating that the gun in question was a single shot rifle that had been produced for decades( Still no mention of the model) that had been given to him by a friend years ago and had never been fired. Convienently dodging all the potentially illegalities of the situation. So either Kerry is lying or he is hiring really stupid staff members.

No matter what your view on gun control is, Kerry is anti-gun. His voting record distinguishes him as such.