NationStates Jolt Archive

Only from the master flip flop. He was seen, (media awareness no doubt), hunting in Ohio, while attempting to gain more votes. But yet, his record is one of the worst there is on 2nd amendment rights. Heard from the brain waves from the Senators head. "I like you folks, I enjoy feeling your manly tesosterone while in the woods. But once I get you suckered into voting me in, ha, there won't be anymore trips like this"!

Just one of the boys. NOT!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20041021/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_guns

Just check his gun stats!
http://www.conservationcafe.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001406;p=0

All leaders want to ban guns. they do not like them pointed at them.

Kerry has denied NRA claims that he wants to "take away" guns, but he supported the ban on assault-type weapons and requiring background checks at gun shows

What do you "hunt" with, an AK-47?

What do you "hunt" with, an AK-47?I don't hunt. But I do own a magazine fed rifle that the Senator will ban if he is elected.

What do you "hunt" with, an AK-47?Yes you hunt with an ak-47. You hunt humans.

I don't hunt. But I do own a magazine fed rifle that the Senator will ban if he is elected.

If I recall correctly, this is up to Congress. They are the ones that let the assult weapons ban expire, not the President.

And of course you direly need that gun, right? Because a rifle with a internal magazine is in which way inferior? Sorry, all i can read out of that link is Kerry wanting to restrict the availability of certain weapons and ammunitions, no to make hunting impossible. Personally i see no need for hunting ammo to be able to penetrate Class II armor, but maybe the rabbits are wearing flak jackets now.

if you are a hard core gun nut to whom the ownership of assault weapons is the most important aspect of your political freedom, then you should vote republican. they have done a good job of protecting the rights of US citizens to own guns that have their only use as killing other people.

if you think that john kerry is going to ban hunting or common handguns. you are flat out wrong. even if he wanted to, and if that is what he wants im sure you can go to his webpage and bring us a URL to where its in his platform, even if he wanted to, it can't be done under our constitution.

so if youre NOT a gun nut, then you should look to the other 10000 differences between the 2 men to make your decision.

Ummm, can someone tell me what is wrong with Kerry's vote record. Seems entirely right and reasonable to me.

Personally i see no need for hunting ammo to be able to penetrate Class II armor, but maybe the rabbits are wearing flak jackets now.


Word.

I think you guys miss the point of this thread.

It's not an arguement that he will or will not ban them.

It's how hypocritical he is to pretend to be a friend of gun owners while having a voting record that is anti gun rights.

Being in Ohio I have the choice between voting for a senator that got a D from the NRA and a democrat that got an F from the NRA... :( Not much of a choice..

I'm all for banning assault weapons. It all depends on how the laws are worded though.

I think you guys miss the point of this thread.

It's not an arguement that he will or will not ban them.

It's how hypocritical he is to pretend to be a friend of gun owners while having a voting record that is anti gun rights.

Nope, i dont think i am missing something. Neither the title nor the first post bring up the issue of hypocrisy, but rather a misleading a/o uninformed title and partisan introduction ignore the simple fact that putting regulations on something does not "ban" it. I can by carefull examination of the very partisan post behind the second link not find a single flip flop, and see no real connection between going duckhunting and the right to possess a M-16 with AP mun, which is what Kerry does want forbidden.

I think you guys miss the point of this thread.

It's not an arguement that he will or will not ban them.

It's how hypocritical he is to pretend to be a friend of gun owners while having a voting record that is anti gun rights.

Being in Ohio I have the choice between voting for a senator that got a D from the NRA and a democrat that got an F from the NRA... :( Not much of a choice..

Look, there are only three uses for assult weaons outside of the millitary. that is, only 3 things those guns can do that a normal gun can't.

1) Compensate for somthing.
2) Armed robbery.
3) A killing spree.

None of which are somthing that helps society, it's time for them to go.

Only from the master flip flop. He was seen, (media awareness no doubt), hunting in Ohio, while attempting to gain more votes. But yet, his record is one of the worst there is on 2nd amendment rights. Heard from the brain waves from the Senators head. "I like you folks, I enjoy feeling your manly tesosterone while in the woods. But once I get you suckered into voting me in, ha, there won't be anymore trips like this"!

Just one of the boys. NOT!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20041021/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_guns

Just check his gun stats!
http://www.conservationcafe.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001406;p=0


I love the Upper Class when arguing for Hunting:

"Oh don't ban it by jove. Otherwise we shall have nothing to do but sleep with our cousins and then there'll be more of us. Imagine that!"

Look, there are only three uses for assult weaons outside of the millitary. that is, only 3 things those guns can do that a normal gun can't.

1) Compensate for somthing.
2) Armed robbery.
3) A killing spree.

None of which are somthing that helps society, it's time for them to go.
Only 3 things you can come up with. And you are biased against them in the first place so I guess that is to be expected.

1) Yes, you can hunt with assault style weapons. Concidering it's often cosmetics that determine when something is an "assault" weapon.
2) You can target shoot. As in paper targets. As in not a killing spree. It is a popular pass time.
3) You can plink with an assault weapon. Just going out and shoot paint cans, 2 liter bottles of water, pumpkins. It is also a popular pass time, and not a killing spree... unless you belong to PETIO: People for the Ethical Treatment of Inanimate Objects.
4) You can collect them and never shoot them at all.
5) You can have them for self defense.

You are being narrow minded, but I'm coming to expect that from the anti-(guns, or abortion, or just about anything) crowd. Agree with you and it's all good, disagree with you and become evil.... that's the way it seems to work.

Only 3 things you can come up with. And you are biased against them in the first place so I guess that is to be expected.

1) Yes, you can hunt with assault style weapons. Concidering it's often cosmetics that determine when something is an "assault" weapon.
2) You can target shoot. As in paper targets. As in not a killing spree. It is a popular pass time.
3) You can plink with an assault weapon. Just going out and shoot paint cans, 2 liter bottles of water, pumpkins. It is also a popular pass time, and not a killing spree... unless you belong to PETIO: People for the Ethical Treatment of Inanimate Objects.
4) You can collect them and never shoot them at all.
5) You can have them for self defense.

You are being narrow minded, but I'm coming to expect that from the anti-(guns, or abortion, or just about anything) crowd. Agree with you and it's all good, disagree with you and become evil.... that's the way it seems to work.

1) Yeah, um.....you know what? When you need an automatic weapon firing AP bullets to kill ducks you have a very serious problem.

2) If YOU losing your past time means less crimitals with guns, then your past times goes.

3) See 2.

4) See my #1.

5) Yeah, because lord knows that your collection of high calibar pistols and rifles isn't enough for that.

1) Yeah, um.....you know what? When you need an automatic weapon firing AP bullets to kill ducks you have a very serious problem.

2) If YOU losing your past time means less crimitals with guns, then your past times goes.

3) See 2.

4) See my #1.

5) Yeah, because lord knows that your collection of high calibar pistols and rifles isn't enough for that.
Again, if you don't like guns, or they make you feel "uncomfortable" feel free to not own one.

Don't try to force your biased views on the rest of the law abiding citizens who choose to exorcise their rights. Im not trying to force you to own a gun, even though it's been shown that forced ownership of firearms actually reduces crime.

I can find plenty of peaceful passtimes involved with the owning and possession of guns, assault or otherwise. I've owned a gun of one type or another since I was about 13... my first one was a single shot .410 shotgun I would shoot clay pigeons with my brother and grandfather. And yet I have never harmed another human with one. There are millions out there just like me. You are not in danger from me, why don't you direct your energies agaisnt those who do threaten your safety... i.e. the criminals.

1) Yeah, um.....you know what? When you need an automatic weapon firing AP bullets to kill ducks you have a very serious problem.


1 - If you knew half as much as you're acting like you do, you'd be well aware that the 'ban' had no effect on "automatic weapons" at all. It was, for the most part, a move to ban standard semi-automatic weaponry based on a few cosmetic issues. It did also get rid of some truly crap-grade low-end SA's though, that even I, an avid owner and enthusiast, will not miss.

Furthermore, "armor piercing"? No hunter in his right mind would use such things for duck (dont most guys use shotguns for fowl?), and definitely not the larger game, unless there's some bear/moose hunters that need that extra penetration to down the target. That's why a great deal of hunting rounds are soft-tipped. You want good velocity and accuracy from your round, you dont want it going in one side and out the other.

'course, body armor isn't all that great against your average rifle rounds to begin with. High velocity == punched hole in most. Lower caliber/velocity rounds tend to just flatten, but it still hurts.

[/FONT][COLOR=Navy]
Man has had guns for hundreds of years now. It would be almost impossible to stop people from owning them. The gun market is now a vast market which sells billions of guns per year. Millions of people in the united states alone purchase hand guns every year. Also by placing a gun ban, the government would be the weaker party; because the people would still own the guns illegaly. Also a gun ban would also create resentment agenst the government, by the people. Therefore banning guns isn't realistic for a government, regardless of how apealing it sounds.

Maybe, just maybe, this is a State's rights issue. I'm just spitballing here, but maybe the citizens of each State should decide what kind of weapons they should be about to purchase and not to purchase. I think a suburban homeowner in New Jersey is in a different situation than a cattle farmer in Montana.

Mr. Kerry is hypocritical and I find it most amusing. I love the picture of him with the shotgun and he talks of gun banning and so on and so fourth. Does anyone hvae this picture?

to the people who thinks he does not want to ban guns... take this
cigarette... first just airplanes... then here then there... now its almost completely illegal to smoke anywhere outside yrou house.. and many apartments are considered illegal too cause might seep through the walls.
Kerry and the anti gun crowd are not stupid they are goint to start of small and go big.
next....... guns.. oh no guns are illegal... oh no.. I'm a criminal.. I dont think I will get a gn cause they are illegal...
normal citizen I want a gun to protect myself... humm you mean I need to wait 3 days.. ok ... oh I cant have one that fires automaticly...... oh... ok.....
exerpt from next days paper.... local man shot to death with fully automatic rifles while awaiting his bb gun from the local gun store.

Can someone please show me an article where Kerry has come right out and said he wants to ban all guns?

to the people who thinks he does not want to ban guns... take this
cigarette... first just airplanes... then here then there... now its almost completely illegal to smoke anywhere outside yrou house.. and many apartments are considered illegal too cause might seep through the walls.
Kerry and the anti gun crowd are not stupid they are goint to start of small and go big.
next....... guns.. oh no guns are illegal... oh no.. I'm a criminal.. I dont think I will get a gn cause they are illegal...
normal citizen I want a gun to protect myself... humm you mean I need to wait 3 days.. ok ... oh I cant have one that fires automaticly...... oh... ok.....
exerpt from next days paper.... local man shot to death with fully automatic rifles while awaiting his bb gun from the local gun store.
I think this stretches things a bit, but I do understand where you're coming from.
Also, while I am not a smoker, I do think the smoking bans have become a bit to "draconian" in nature. And it's gone even further than you suggest. It's been proposed to ban smoking even in some private homes.
http://www.examiner.ie/breaking/2003/10/15/story117375.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/929619/posts

Again, if you don't like guns, or they make you feel "uncomfortable" feel free to not own one.

Don't try to force your biased views on the rest of the law abiding citizens who choose to exorcise their rights. Im not trying to force you to own a gun, even though it's been shown that forced ownership of firearms actually reduces crime.

I can find plenty of peaceful passtimes involved with the owning and possession of guns, assault or otherwise. I've owned a gun of one type or another since I was about 13... my first one was a single shot .410 shotgun I would shoot clay pigeons with my brother and grandfather. And yet I have never harmed another human with one. There are millions out there just like me. You are not in danger from me, why don't you direct your energies agaisnt those who do threaten your safety... i.e. the criminals.

Guess what, it DOSN'T MATTER.

there are people who would probably enjoy safe, not harmfull skeet hunting with anti-tank rocketlaunchers because they find it fun. But they can't do that either!

"Get your stinking paws off me you damned, dirty ape!" Oh wait, wrong quote. "Out of my cold, dead hand!" (raising rifle over head)

Mr. Kerry is hypocritical and I find it most amusing. I love the picture of him with the shotgun and he talks of gun banning and so on and so fourth. Does anyone hvae this picture?

*bleep* *bleep* Moron detected!

Kerry didn't want to ban all guns, just assult weapons!

*bleep* *bleep* Moron detected!

Kerry didn't want to ban all guns, just assult weapons!

Define assault weapon.

Jesus Christ, I'm tired of this baseless fucking claim. If you're going to claim that Kerry wants to ban all guns, you better post proof of a vote that does just that--and the assault weapons ban doesn't count, because that passed with bipartisan support, was supported by a majority of Americans, and most importantly doesn't ban all guns. Post the bill he voted on that would ban all guns, or would ban ammunition--post something other than the rantings of your own ass and let's see some context for these votes. Either come with it or shut the hell up.

*bleep* *bleep* Moron detected!

Kerry didn't want to ban all guns, just assult weapons!
He's voted to restrict and limit access to guns of many types, not just assault weapons. He's voted to restrict or limit access to ammunition, which affects all guns, not just assault weapons.

And childish name calling does little to help you make a point.

John Kerry on Gun Control


"Country less safe-terrorists can now buy assault weapons"

Q: You said if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you'd sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage Congress to extend it.

BUSH: I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban and was told the bill was never going to move. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks. The best way to protect our citizens from guns is to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns.

KERRY: I am a hunter. I'm a gun owner. I'm also a former law enforcement officer. I ran one of the largest district attorney's offices in America. I know something about prosecuting. Most of the law enforcement agencies wanted that assault weapons ban. They don't want to go into a drug bust and be facing an AK-47. Because of the president's decision today, law enforcement officers will walk into a place that will be more dangerous. Terrorists can now come to America, go to a gun show and, without a background check, buy an assault weapon.
Source: [Xref Bush] Third Bush-Kerry debate, in Tempe AZ Oct 13, 2004

"Supports 2nd Amendment, but wants to ban assault weapons"

Let me be clear. I support the Second Amendment. I am a gun owner. I am a hunter. {Kerry justified the ban because no hunter uses assault weapons.} George Bush chose to make the job of terrorists easier, and the job of police officers harder.
Source: Editorial in Washington Times Sep 15, 2004

"Gun owner & hunter, but rights come with responsibility"

John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and he believes that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands. John Kerry strongly supports all of the federal gun laws on the books, and he would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced, cracking down hard on the gun runners, corrupt dealers, straw buyers, and thieves that are putting guns into the hands of criminals in the first place. He will also close the gun show loophole, which is allowing criminals to get access to guns at gun shows without background checks, fix the background check system, which is in a serious state of disrepair, and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock.
Source: Campaign website, JohnKerry.com, "Issues" Mar 21, 2004

"Democratic Party shouldn't be for the NRA"

Q: Do you find it necessary to kill animals for photo-ops?

A: I don't think the Democratic Party should be the candidacy of the NRA. And when I was fighting to ban assault weapons in 1992 and 1993, Dean was appealing to the NRA for their endorsement, and he got it. I believe it's important for us to have somebody who is going to stand up for gun safety in America and make certain that we make our streets safe, our children safe, and not allow people to get assault weapons in America.
Source: CNN "Rock The Vote" Democratic Debate Nov 5, 2003

"Supports assault weapons ban & Brady Bill"

Q: Your views on gun safety.

KERRY: There's a story in today's Washington Post that says that Democrats are going to run away from the issue of gun safety. I don't think that we can get elected nationally if we are not prepared to stand up against powerful special interests. Too many die each year from guns. I am for the assault weapons ban. I'm for the Brady Bill.
Source: Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27, 2003

Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence.
Vote to pass a bill that would block certain civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition, mainly those lawsuits aimed at making them liable for gun violence. In this bill, trade groups would also be protected The bill would call for the dismissal of pending lawsuits against the gun industry. The exception would be lawsuits regarding a defect in a weapon or ammunition. It also would provide a 10-year reauthorization of the assault weapons ban which is set to expire in September 2004. The bill would increase the penalties for gun-related violent or drug trafficking crimes which have not resulted in death, to a minimum of 15 years imprisonment. The bill calls for criminal background checks on all firearm transactions at gun shows where at least 75 guns are sold. Exemptions would be made available for dealers selling guns from their homes as well as members-only gun swaps and meets carried out by nonprofit hunting clubs.
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S.1805/H.R.1036 ; vote number 2004-30 on Mar 2, 2004

"Voted YES on background checks at gun shows."

Require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)50; N)50; VP decided YES
Reference: Lautenberg Amdt #362; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-134 on May 20, 1999

Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations.
The Hatch amdt would increase mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, fund additional drug case prosecutors, and require background check on purchasers at gun shows. [A YES vote supports stricter penalties].
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)48; N)47; NV)5
Reference: Hatch Amendment #344; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-118 on May 14, 1999

"Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows."

Vote to table or kill a motion to require that all gun sales at gun shows be completed by federally licensed gun dealers. Also requires background checks to be completed on buyers and requires gun show promoters to register with the Treasury.
Bill S.254 ; vote number 1999-111 on May 11, 1999

"Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks."

Vote to table [kill] an amendment to make it unlawful for gun dealers to sell handguns without providing trigger locks. Violation of the law would result in civil penalties, such as suspension or revocation of the dealer's license, or a fine.
Bill S 2260 ; vote number 1998-216 on Jul 21, 1998

"Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology."

Kerry signed the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":

Make America the “Safest Big Country” in the World
After climbing relentlessly for three decades, crime rates started to fall in the 1990s. Nonetheless, the public remains deeply concerned about the prevalence of gun violence, especially among juveniles, and Americans still avoid public spaces like downtown retail areas, parks, and even sports facilities.

We need to keep policing “smart” and community-friendly, prohibiting unjust and counterproductive tactics such as racial profiling; focus on preventing as well as punishing crime; pay attention to what happens to inmates and their families after sentencing; use mandatory testing and treatment to break the cycle of drugs and crime; and enforce and strengthen laws against unsafe or illegal guns. Moreover, we need a renewed commitment to equal justice for all, and we must reject a false choice between justice and safety.

Technology can help in many areas: giving police more information on criminal suspects so they do not rely on slipshod, random stop-and-search methods; allowing lower-cost supervision of people on probation or parole; and making it possible to disable and/or trace guns used by unauthorized persons.

Above all, we need to remember that public safety is the ultimate goal of crime policy. Until Americans feel safe enough to walk their neighborhood streets, enjoy public spaces, and send their children to school without fear of violence, we have not achieved public safety.

* Goals for 2010 Reduce violent crime rates another 25 percent.
* Cut the rate of repeat offenses in half.
* Develop and require “smart gun” technology to prevent use of firearms by unauthorized persons and implement sensible gun control measures.
* Ban racial profiling by police but encourage criminal targeting through better information on actual suspects.
* Require in-prison and post-prison drug testing and treatment of all drug offenders.

Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC11 on Aug 1, 2000

"Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record."

Kerry scores F by NRA on pro-gun rights policies

While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly three million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs.

While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly three million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs.

The following ratings are based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionaire sent to all Congressional candidates; the NRA assigned a letter grade (with A+ being the highest and F being the lowest).
Source: NRA website 02n-NRA on Dec 31, 2003


Though I'm not sure why I'm posting this, far be it for logical and validated facts to change anyone's opinions.

Jesus Christ, I'm tired of this baseless fucking claim. If you're going to claim that Kerry wants to ban all guns, you better post proof of a vote that does just that--and the assault weapons ban doesn't count, because that passed with bipartisan support, was supported by a majority of Americans, and most importantly doesn't ban all guns. Post the bill he voted on that would ban all guns, or would ban ammunition--post something other than the rantings of your own ass and let's see some context for these votes. Either come with it or shut the hell up.

Here's some info on how Kerry has voted in the past.
http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=161

And when has the NRA been an unbiased viewpoint in the guncontrol debate? The more recent and less spindoctored facts are in my above post, thank you.

And when has the NRA been an unbiased viewpoint in the guncontrol debate? The more recent and less spindoctored facts are in my above post, thank you.

Are you saying that they are lying about how Kerry voted? I'll agree they are biased.. But they do state Kerry's voting record correctly.

Take any info from anyone with a grain of salt. But Kerry's voting record is a fact you cannot deny.

And when has the NRA been an unbiased viewpoint in the guncontrol debate? The more recent and less spindoctored facts are in my above post, thank you.
Well the NRA article lists sources, while yours does not.

If you don't believe the NRA or me. Check the facts for yourself.

FACT: Kerry co-sponsors a bill that would ban all semi-automatic shotguns and detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles, a gigantic step toward bringing Australian-style gun control to the U.S.1.
Signed on as co-sponsor of S. 1431 on Nov. 21, 2003.

FACT: Kerry has voted nine times in favor of banning semi-auto firearms.
Vote No. 24, March 2, 2004; Vote No. 295, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 294, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 293, Aug. 25, 1994; Vote No. 375, Nov. 17, 1993; Vote No. 365, Nov. 9, 1993; Vote No. 133, June 28, 1990; Vote No. 103, May 23, 1990; Vote No. 102, May 23, 1990.

FACT: Kerry has voted for a Ted Kennedy amendment to ban most center-fire rifle ammunition, including the most common rounds used by hunters and target shooters.
Vote No. 28, March 2, 2004.

There are more...

Sources are at the bottom of each quotation, or would you prefer I bolded it for you? My biggest problem with the NRA "fact sheet" is that it is spun to the point where his voting record appears to want to ban every firearm known to man, where as that isn't the case. If they were to link to the exact wording of the bill he voted for, then I wouldn't have any bitching to be doing about it and I wouldn't have any trouble dealing wit hthe NRA's bias as it would be by wrote factual information. Once again, then NRA has simply taken and reworded whatever the orrignal bill was to say what they want it to say.

An example would be me taking the quotes from John Ashcroft

"Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been different. We have no king but Jesus.
-John Ashcroft*

And stating

John Ashcroft has stated that America is a society built around Protestant Chritianity only, he's time and time again railed against other religous groups rights to exist, and it's only a matter of time till he begins a holocaustal war to erradicate them.

See my point?

Sources are at the bottom of each quotation, or would you prefer I bolded it for you? My biggest problem with the NRA "fact sheet" is that it is spun to the point where his voting record appears to want to ban every firearm known to man, where as that isn't the case. If they were to link to the exact wording of the bill he voted for, then I wouldn't have any bitching to be doing about it.
no, not bolded, but linked.

And the links in the NRA's page's sources are where, I'm having trouble finding them. However, if you'd like to pull punches, I'll see what I can dredge up from Public record.

And the links in the NRA's page's sources are where, I'm having trouble finding them. However, if you'd like to pull punches, I'll see what I can dredge up from Public record.
Well, actually I wish the NRA site did link the sources, but I can hardly control their own website.
However, when a point was made here, the poster provided a link to the NRA site. When you made a point, you provided no link, just quotes. That was the difference.

I could follow the NRA link and if I wanted to further investigate I could look up the sources quoted. Yours did not offer me the same initial link.

I think banning assault weapons ie: weapons that are basically automatic rifles, is a good idea. Firstly you don't need an ak47 for self defence, picture this; someone comes up to your car before you start it, and pulls a knife on you. It's going to be a hell of a lot easier to pull out a .357 magnum than its going to be to take out and load an ak47. Secondly hunting with an assault weapon is ridiculous, just stand 100 metres away and shoot the animal , where's the sport in that? Use a bow, its far more interesting and it requires more skill than just blowing the creature's head off.

I think banning assault weapons ie: weapons that are basically automatic rifles, is a good idea. Firstly you don't need an ak47 for self defence, picture this; someone comes up to your car before you start it, and pulls a knife on you. It's going to be a hell of a lot easier to pull out a .357 magnum than its going to be to take out and load an ak47. Secondly hunting with an assault weapon is ridiculous, just stand 100 metres away and shoot the animal , where's the sport in that? Use a bow, its far more interesting and it requires more skill than just blowing the creature's head off.
You are, unfortunately, misinformed. Assault weapons are not basicaly automatic rifles.

As has been pointed out by myself and others, there are other reasons to own firearms of all types than hunting and self defense.

And the best part, you don't need a reason at all to exorcise your rights.

Anyone have a link to the older congressional records? Just in case someone wants to check a senators voting record.

I went to the senate site and all that I could track down was current legislation..

Here's some info on how Kerry has voted in the past.
http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=161Ah. An NRA fact sheet. Don't have to worry about them possibly taking votes out of context, huh?

Okay--let's look at their charges on votes, shall we? Their first charge is: FACT: Kerry co-sponsors a bill that would ban all semi-automatic shotguns and detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles, a gigantic step toward bringing Australian-style gun control to the U.S.He sure did--he supported a continuation of the assault weapons ban, which apparently, just about everyone but the NRA and the House leadership also supported.

Fact 2 deals with a statement, not legislation, that guns and ammunition ought to be taxed. If anyone can give me a good reason why guns and ammo should be tax-exempt, I'd love to hear it.

Fact 3 says Kerry voted 9 times to ban semi-automatic weapons. That claim is about as accurate as the "he voted to raise taxes 350 times" claim. You can look up the individual votes here. (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm) It's an easy enough thing to so, but I'll give you some of the highlights. Vote number 24 of this year--the one that has so many people's panties in a twist--is for a ten year extension of the assault weapons ban. That's all. Votes 293, 294 and 295 from 1994 are, respectively, a motion to waive a CBA report, a cloture vote, and agreeing to the conference report.

Do you sense a pattern yet? I'm not even through three of the NRA's "facts" yet and it's obvious that they're making Kerry's votes look like something they aren't. By the way--the original assault weapons ban passed with bi-partisan support, 61-38. That's a filibuster proof margin. Kerry was hardly out of the mainstream on those votes.

Look--if you don't want to support Kerry because you believe the right to own a semi-automatic assault rifle is sacrosanct in the Constitution, fine. But don't accuse him of trying to ban all guns or being wanting to take away your second amendment rights, because it's bullshit, plain and simple, and I've just gone a long way toward proving that.

Anyone have a link to the older congressional records? Just in case someone wants to check a senators voting record.

I went to the senate site and all that I could track down was current legislation..
Follow the link in my above reply, and you can get votes back to 1989.

Personally i see no need for hunting ammo to be able to penetrate Class II armor, but maybe the rabbits are wearing flak jackets now.Rabbits aren't the only animals that people hunt. Big-game hunting rifles actually use more powerful ammunition than true assault rifles. (An assault weapon could use any cartridge.)
Lasco International, N.I.J., and Underwriters Laboritory Standards: A .44 Magnum will penetrate Class II armor.
Russian Standards: An armor-piercing AK-47 will penetrate Class II armor. A regular AK-47 will not.
If you're using one of the former standards and penetration of Class II armor is your limit to what should be legal, you'll have to ban some handguns, too. If the second is, AK-47s remain legal, but AP ammunition gets banned.
it can't be done under our constitution.Well, the constitution doesn't say we're allowed to have ANY arms we want to...Just arms.
I'm all for banning assault weapons. It all depends on how the laws are worded though.Assault weapon is a purely legal term, so a law banning them could ban anything from a pointy fork to a nuclear bomb.
there are people who would probably enjoy safe, not harmfull skeet hunting with anti-tank rocketlaunchers because they find it fun. But they can't do that either!AT rocket launchers are legal in the USA, but heavily regulated.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#m
hunting with an assault weapon is ridiculousWhich of these features makes it ridiculous to use the weapon for hunting? While they're not necessary, how does their presence make hunting with the weapon ridiculous?
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppresser or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppresser; and

`
(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppresser, forward hand grip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned;

(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

Works Cited

Third Presidential Debate - Link (http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004d.html)

Washington Times Editorial, September 15th 2004 *no online copy avalible*

John Kerry Website, On the Issues, posted March 21st, 2004 - link (http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/sportsmen/)

Rock The Vote Debate, November 5th, 2003 link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64721-2003Nov4?language=printer)

Democractic Primary Debate in Detriot, October 27th 2003 Warning, opens in Word (www.issues2000.org/Transcripts/ cbc_detroit_2003_oct_27.doc)

Bills he has voted against Would ban lawsuits against gun manufacturers (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01805:) A bill to reduce violent juvenile crime, promote accountability by rehabilitation of juvenile criminals, punish and deter violent gang crime, and for other purposes. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN00254:@@@D&summ2=m&) would maintain current law allowing guns to be sold without trigger locks (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.2260:)

Hyde Park Declarations link (http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=174&contentid=1926)

Additionaly the orrigianl quotation came from the bi-partisan site Vote the Issue, link (http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm)

you can find old voting records there for most politicians, as well as transcripts and links to the exact wording of the bills, as listed above.

Finaly, I'd like to clear up what seems to be misconceptions here. . . I am a gun owner, I've got a .30-06 rifle that I use to target shoot, and should I ever need it, for defence. To that purpouse, I've got high powered ammunition and a few silver tipped shells designed for big game. I've never had to shoot anyone, and I hope I never do, however, even with those high powered shells, a shotgun would be a better deturant to a criminal than an assault rifle, espcialy seeing as how the shotgun is designed for close quarters combat. If I knew they were coming, I'd take the rifle and shoot them before they ever got onto my property. If I was caught by surprise, I'd much rather have a knife, sword, or some other hand to hand weapon, a shotgun, or even better, a pistol to defend myself with. I'm not anti-gun, and I'm certianly not too thrilled about Kerry as president, however there are more important issues at stake here than wether I can go out and buy a .50 caliber chaingun. Also, I do find it a little bit riduculus to be hunting with a bayonet and a grenade launcher. . . but then again, you might not be as good a shot as I am and might need that.

I just like to mention one thing about the voting record: Riders.

With riders, you can vote against a law lowering taxes just because you don't want to allow a ban on stem-cell research. When you take a voting record, you can make ANY politicain be for or against ANY issue. Just look at riders, and you're set. The devil is in the details.

I think banning assault weapons ie: weapons that are basically automatic rifles, is a good idea. Firstly you don't need an ak47 for self defence, picture this; someone comes up to your car before you start it, and pulls a knife on you. It's going to be a hell of a lot easier to pull out a .357 magnum than its going to be to take out and load an ak47. Secondly hunting with an assault weapon is ridiculous, just stand 100 metres away and shoot the animal , where's the sport in that? Use a bow, its far more interesting and it requires more skill than just blowing the creature's head off.I think you need to do some research, you can start here:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Federal+assault+weapons+ban+(USA)
These automatic weapons yopu speak of have been banned since 1934, where have you been?

A semi-automatic weapon, which can be found in rifle, handgun, and shotgun form, are next on the chopping block.

Mr. Kerry has a plan, and that plan is to reduce all magazine fed auto-pistols to drop to 6 rd capacity. He want's to flat out ban semi-auto rifles, and shotguns. It's all in the initial link.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Federal+assault+weapons+ban+(USA)Original article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_assault_weapons_ban_(USA))
TheFreeDictionary.com copies Wikipedia and doesn't work right in Opera.
These automatic weapons yopu speak of have been banned since 1934, where have you been?Fully automatic weapons are legal in the USA.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#m

Kerry's voting record on gun issues as provided by http://www.vote-smart.org

1991 - voted for a 5 day waiting period before purchasing a hand gun

1993 - voted for a 5 day waiting period before purchasing a hand gun (the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)

1993 - voted to make the 5 day waiting period provided in the Brady Bill perminent and not expire after 5 years

1993 - voted to ban certain semi-automatic weapons

1993 - voted against the amendment banning the manufacture, sale and future possession of 19 semiautomatic assault weapons

1996 - voted against tabling (killing) an amendment to make it a federal crime to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school, with certain exceptions.

1998 - voted against tabling (killing) an amendment that would prohibit the importation of large capacity ammunition clips

1998 - voted against tabling (killing) an amendment to make it unlawful for gun dealers to sell handguns without trigger locks.

1998 - voted against prohibiting charging prospective gun owners a tax or fee to cover the cost of a background check, and to require the destruction of any information used during a background check if that person is allowed to purchase a firearm.

1999 - voted to limit debate time on a substitute amendment that would grant funding for programs designed at reducing violence among youth.

1999 - voted in favor of requiring all firearms sales at gun shows to have background checks performed and to allow the Attorney General to maintain records of gun sales for up to 90 days.

1999 - voted in favor of requiring special licensees at gun shows to conduct background checks on anyone purchasing a gun from them and to require pawnshops to conduct background checks on anyone redeeming their own gun.

1999 - voted in favor of prohibiting the sale or transfer of handguns unless accompanied by a secure gun storage or safety lock.

1999 - voted to kill an amendment that would ban Internet websites that advertise to sell more than 10 guns unless the person operating the site is a licensed gun dealer.

1999 - voted against requiring unlicensed gun vendors to conduct background checks on gun purchasers through a licensed vendor at gun shows.

1999 - voted against killing an amendment that would ban possession and transfer of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition clips to juveniles. The amendment would also prohibit the importation of large capacity ammunition clips.

1999 - voted against killing kill an amendment to require that all gun sales at gun shows be completed by federally licensed gun dealers. The amendment also requires background checks to be completed on buyers.

1999 - voted agasint allowing private guns vendors to conduct voluntary background checks on gun purchasers at gun shows. It also eliminates the requirement of pawn shops to conduct background checks on people reclaiming their own guns.


2000 - voted against an amendment to bar gun manufacturers from being released from their debts that were brought about by lawsuits charging fraud, negligence, recklessness or product liability.

2004 - voted against pass a bill that would prohibit certain civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition pertaining to acts of criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms.

He seems to be for proper background checks being performed by properly licensed individuals before giving a person a gun. He also seems to support a ban on certain semi-automatic weapons. He supports prohibiting minors from owning semi-automatic weapons. He also seems to support making a person wait 5 bussiness days for a background check before being allowed to purchase a hand gun.

I personally am not seeing the flip-flop. going on here. Then again I think that a person should have the right to own certain fire arms but I don't think that includes the right to own rocket launchers or an 50 caliber M2 machine gun.

I was thinking about the constitutional right behind the right for people to own guns. Personally I am wondering how many people that say they have a constitutional right to own guns have actually read the constitution.

The second Amendment says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now as I read that it does not give the right to own guns for collections. It does not give the right to own guns for hunting or any other shooting sport. It does not give the right to own guns for personal protection. It gives the right to own guns as part of a well regulated Militia to defend the nation.

So who has the power and responsibility to form and maintain these Militias? Well fortunately the constitution discusses that as well.

Section 8 clauses 15 and 16 Of the Constitution of the United States of America say that Congress has the following powers:

15) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Just in case everyone missed it, Bush wanted to keep the assault weapons ban in effect as well as Kerry, but congress let it die. Blame congress, not Kerry.

Also, there is a difference between banning guns, and gun control.

For instance, you cannot take a gun on an airplane. This is gun control.

Same with registration, background checks, etc.

Kerry supports this.

Some European countries have gone further and actually banned handguns. Kerry would not support that.

Just in case everyone missed it, Bush wanted to keep the assault weapons ban in effect as well as Kerry, but congress let it die. Blame congress, not Kerry.
If you really want to narrow it down, blame Tom DeLay, because he's the person who held it up more than any other single person. But if Bush had really wanted it, say, as badly as he wanted his original tax cut, he could have spent a little of his political capital and forced DeLay's hand. He didn't, simply because he figured he could blame the expiration on Congress and the NRA would still endorse him. And he was right. Bush is no dummy politically speaking--incompetent, yes, but not stupid.

I was thinking about the constitutional right behind the right for people to own guns. Personally I am wondering how many people that say they have a constitutional right to own guns have actually read the constitution.

The second Amendment says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now as I read that it does not give the right to own guns for collections. It does not give the right to own guns for hunting or any other shooting sport. It does not give the right to own guns for personal protection. It gives the right to own guns as part of a well regulated Militia to defend the nation.

So who has the power and responsibility to form and maintain these Militias? Well fortunately the constitution discusses that as well.

Section 8 clauses 15 and 16 Of the Constitution of the United States of America say that Congress has the following powers:

15) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

And SCOTUS defines a militia as all able bodied men capable of bearing arms.
http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/sc/116us252.html
http://www.rkba.org/judicial/verdugo-urquidez.txt

The 2nd amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a state right.

Keep and bear arms means exactly that. To keep them and bear them for any lawful purpose whether that be collecting, hunting, or target shooting.

Also, there is a difference between banning guns, and gun control.

For instance, you cannot take a gun on an airplane. This is gun control.

Same with registration, background checks, etc.

Kerry supports this.

Some European countries have gone further and actually banned handguns. Kerry would not support that.

While not handguns (yet) Kerry has supported a bill that bans all semi-auto shotguns and any semi-auto rifle that can hold a clip.

The Brady Campaign disagrees w/ your opinion.

While not handguns (yet) Kerry has supported a bill that bans all semi-auto shotguns and any semi-auto rifle that can hold a clip.

The Brady Campaign disagrees w/ your opinion.
True, he (and the major police groups) supported the Brady Bill. I didn't deny that. I just said he wouldn't ban handguns.

Only from the master flip flop. He was seen, (media awareness no doubt), hunting in Ohio, while attempting to gain more votes. But yet, his record is one of the worst there is on 2nd amendment rights. Heard from the brain waves from the Senators head. "I like you folks, I enjoy feeling your manly tesosterone while in the woods. But once I get you suckered into voting me in, ha, there won't be anymore trips like this"!
Bush must be in big trouble if you guys are grasping at straws like this. Time broke the story about Kerry being a lifelong hunter (sorry, he hunts every year not just election years) back in July along with pictures of him trap shooting. I grew up with guns in the house, they were the guns of law enforcement. Everything Kerry has voted for makes it that much more likely that a cop will come home at night. You can't say that about the NRA's stand on guns.

I would like to clear a few things up, just so there is no further misinformation. There are no fully banned small arms in the united states. With the proper licenses and permits, an individual or organization has access to anything from soft pellet weapons to anti-tank systems (I apologize for lack of links, but as a class 3 weapon permit holder, I have some experience here. I'm sure a little research at your local library will give you the sufficient proof you require).

I personally own a substantial arsenal, of which I justify three ways.

First, I am self-sufficient. I need not rely on any private or governmental agency to provide for my security or well-being.

Second, I am deterant. I need not rely on law enforcement agencies to keep myself or my family, my property, or my land free from unlawful transgression.

Third, I am unoppressable. I need not fear that government which I have voted into place.

I have served this country for my adult life, both active and National Guard, both in peacetime and at war. I have served as a law enforcement officer, a firearms trainer, and a political activist. I have drawn my weapon in defense and in the pursuit of justice. I live a normal, well adjusted life in a large city with my family. All of this, and I own a weapon that serves no other purpose than to stop an armored vehicle in its tracks... How does this make me a bad person.

Its the bad people who need to be worried about... not the guns.

To return to the original subject, neither Bush nor Kerry can say they are going to change the world. They have the same job to do as the 50 some odd presidents before them. They will say things they don't mean if it will get them elected, at which point they will do what their heart or their wallet tells them to do. We are a representative democracy. That means we are bound by the decisions those representatives make, regardless of our personal feelings. You cannot look at either man using the "one-issue method." I highly recommend the following website if you would like to know each candidates stances and history:

http://www.vote-smart.org/

It is slightly skewed, so please use a degree of objectivity when viewing the site. That aside, it is a wonderful source of information.

As a side note, I find it amusing that the following smilies are available and have yet to be used... :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

"He who willingly sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
--Benjamin Franklin

Its the bad people who need to be worried about... not the guns.


Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where you can be reasonably sure that the "bad people" can't easily get a hold of a gun?

I know you'll say that they'll just get guns illegally, but the fairly comprehensive banning of guns here in Australia seems to work pretty well. I definitely have never thought "I'd feel so much safer if I had a gun or two in the house".

That's the thing. Kerry, primarily, has voted for things that may delay, but not prevent, a law abiding person from getting a gun. If you are lawful, you'll have no problem getting a gun. He's also tried to limit guns that can cause widespread bloodshed, without taking away the more standard guns.

All in all, it seems like common sense compromise. Unfortunately, Bush and many of his supporters see compromise as weakness or irresoluteness. That kind of ideology, the ideology of absolutes, is a disaster for diplomacy and runs counter to the idea of being "a uniter, not a divider."

In order to be a uniter, you have to lead ALL the people, not just those who already agree with you.

That's the thing. Kerry, primarily, has voted for things that may delay, but not prevent, a law abiding person from getting a gun. If you are lawful, you'll have no problem getting a gun. He's also tried to limit guns that can cause widespread bloodshed, without taking away the more standard guns.

All in all, it seems like common sense compromise. Unfortunately, Bush and many of his supporters see compromise as weakness or irresoluteness. That kind of ideology, the ideology of absolutes, is a disaster for diplomacy and runs counter to the idea of being "a uniter, not a divider."

In order to be a uniter, you have to lead ALL the people, not just those who already agree with you.

I truly believe that, much like a driver's license, every gun owner should be required to pass a proficiency test. I believe firearm and basic criminal sociology should be part of a standard high school curriculum. I believe that smart gun technology should be developed and implemented.

Unfortunately, there is no reasonably objective, just, and capable body to bring these things into being. Furthermore, any regulation of firearms (as was stated in an earlier post) will lead to further regulation (the whole "foot in the door technique). It makes it very difficult for someone who is pro-defense like myself to weigh compromise, because each compromise may have reprecussions that far outweigh the gains made by the comrpomise.

Idealism at its peak...

To sum up what several people have already mentioned. Firearms (and weapons in general) have been around a long time. No matter how strict you write the laws, people will have guns. A criminal who wants to kill you, rob you, or rape you will find the tools necessary to attempt that task. The injustice is not having a like means to do something about it. Human society is evolutionarily social, but it breaks down in extreme numbers. Ten people will work together toward a common goal and share what they have equally, one hundred will not (hence the inherent failure of idealistic communism). Therefore, it is important for one to be able to compensate for the problems that come with societal breakdown (i.e. crime). What both candidates fail to realize is that they can debate 2nd Amendment all day, but no matter how many guns you ban, crime will remain. It is inevitable. Deterence and just punishment, as well as education and rehabilitation are the things that should be debated... not how many bullets you can put into a clip.

Of course there is still the issue with freedom. If a person should happen to want a 37mm grenade launcher mounted beneath the barrel of his hellfire-equipped semi-automatic AR-15, then he should be allowed such a thing. That does not mean he should be able to pick it up at the corner market, but if he is a valid citizen with a clean record and the money to purchase such a device (and the required permits), there is absolutely nothing that should stop him from owning the aforementioned device. I hold these freedoms very dear, and have defended them with my blood. Whether it be a woman's choice what she do with her body, a researcher's choice to do that which he is trained, a missionary's choice to preach his religion (or an atheist to preach his areligion), or a survivalists choice to own a crate full of hand grenades, so long as the basic rights of his fellow human-being are not violated, nothing should stand in his way. Of course that last clause can be a debate in and of itself.

This leads me to why I quoted the individual who posted about the uniter versus the divider scenario.

Neither candidate has impressed me with their diplomacy. These are my personal thoughts, as objective as is possible. Some of them have strong researchable backing, others are generalized impressions. Take these statements with a grain of salt. I make them public only in the hopes that it will allow others to take a step back and look at the whole picture. Bush has floundered considerably since 9/11. Occasionally, his choices are sound, occasionally, his choices are poor. To be expected in a time of turmoil. I feel that he made some decisions for all the wrong reasons, refuses to admit when he is wrong, and has poor taste in cabinet appointments. His witch hunt in Iraq has cost the lives of more innocent lives (both coalition and Iraqi) than can possibly be considered acceptable. On the other hand, Kerry is a showboat. A man who believes in image over function. His foreign policy ideals genuinely scare me, and could destroy a region of the world already stirred. The idea that involvement in the world court could cause jealous foreign powers to call forth American soldiers and leaders to stand for trumped war crimes is as dastardly as it is insane. We are quite capable of policing our own, we don't need the image in the eyes of the world that we answer to them. Kerry thrives on media presense and sensationalism, Bush thrives on reactionary politics and zeal. Nader is no better. His ridiculous ideas of a "Better America" are far fetched and impossible. That leaves me with three candidates for which I cannot abide any.

So when forced to choose, I am at a loss.

Alas, I will be forced to stand with Bush in the end. At least with him, I know basically what to expect and can feel secure in the knowledge that he can't run a third term. Reagan was able to trancend from movie star to politician, but I fear Kerry is trying too hard to degrade from politician to movie star.

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where you can be reasonably sure that the "bad people" can't easily get a hold of a gun?

I know you'll say that they'll just get guns illegally, but the fairly comprehensive banning of guns here in Australia seems to work pretty well. I definitely have never thought "I'd feel so much safer if I had a gun or two in the house".

He's right. I'd say one of the major reasons your country is so screwed up is because your allowed to keep a shotgun in your house "just in case" someone tries to rob you.

It's just idiotic.

He's right. I'd say one of the major reasons your country is so screwed up is because your allowed to keep a shotgun in your house "just in case" someone tries to rob you.

It's just idiotic.

I believe in the "better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it" axiom :)

of course, I think someone smoking a joint or getting sloppy drunk is idiotic. I think that someone who prefers ignorance is idiotic. I think that someone who allows religion to control their mind is idiotic.

But man, there are a lot of people doing those things too... and most of them think its pretty damn cool...

That's the joy of freedom. So long as you don't infringe on my life, liberty, or property, what right is it of mine to tell you not to do those things.

Third, I am unoppressable. I need not fear that government which I have voted into place.
Incredibly niave statement, I've seen a lot of incidents on the news where someone thought the same thing, everytime the guys in back body armour with the letters on the back (ya'know FBI, ATF, SWAT...) have always come out on top. You will never have more guns than the government or more people to use those guns.

Fear your government. Question it, speak up about it, demand it uphold our founding principles. Complacency and trust are for fools.

Incredibly niave statement, I've seen a lot of incidents on the news where someone thought the same thing, everytime the guys in back body armour with the letters on the back (ya'know FBI, ATF, SWAT...) have always come out on top. You will never have more guns than the government or more people to use those guns.

Fear your government. Question it, speak up about it, demand it uphold our founding principles. Complacency and trust are for fools.

I'm not quite sure if you are joking or not... But on the off chance that you are not, allow me to retort...

The statement was one of fact.

I am unoppressable...

That simply states I do not allow myself to be oppressed. It does not say I would win or lose, it merely states I would refuse tyranny. That said, if it ever came to a point where I needed my firepower to stop my government, I rest assured I would not be alone in the fight. It would take a direct act of tyranny to drive me to such an end, and there are multitudes who, like me... will not be oppressed (and who own guns). I would never, nor would I suggest anyone else ever, live in fear. What a horrible existence.

For the record, I have worn a very similar jacket and very similar body armor.

I just like to mention one thing about the voting record: Riders.

With riders, you can vote against a law lowering taxes just because you don't want to allow a ban on stem-cell research. When you take a voting record, you can make ANY politicain be for or against ANY issue. Just look at riders, and you're set. The devil is in the details.

Most people who bash Kerry's voting record have no freakin' clue what riders are.

Only from the master flip flop. He was seen, (media awareness no doubt), hunting in Ohio, while attempting to gain more votes. But yet, his record is one of the worst there is on 2nd amendment rights. Heard from the brain waves from the Senators head. "I like you folks, I enjoy feeling your manly tesosterone while in the woods. But once I get you suckered into voting me in, ha, there won't be anymore trips like this"!

Just one of the boys. NOT!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20041021/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_guns

Just check his gun stats!
http://www.conservationcafe.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001406;p=0
That's not a "flip-flop", and you sound like a complete fool. Hunting has nothing to do with the gun issue.

I defy anyone to find one statement by John Kerry in favor of banning guns. There is a world of difference between regulating guns and banning them. The NRA has become a shill for the gun manufactoring industry and long ago stopped representing actual gun owners.

Does it not bother you Bush supporters that the only way your candidate has a chance of winning is if he makes Americans feel afraid and insecure? He has been president for 4 years, yet all he does is talk about John Kerry. What is the Bush message? "Be afraid, be very afraid - and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

I'll say this again, the main support for the Brady (Assault weapon ban) Bill was police groups.

So your enemy is not just pansy commie liberals, it's also our nation's cops.

It's the cops taking your guns away.

I defy anyone to find one statement by John Kerry in favor of banning guns. There is a world of difference between regulating guns and banning them. The NRA has become a shill for the gun manufactoring industry and long ago stopped representing actual gun owners.

Does it not bother you Bush supporters that the only way your candidate has a chance of winning is if he makes Americans feel afraid and insecure? He has been president for 4 years, yet all he does is talk about John Kerry. What is the Bush message? "Be afraid, be very afraid - and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

S.1431 Look it up.

The NRA represents over4 million gun owners. They're not "actual" gun owners? The firearms industry is under attack by trial lawyers and gun banners trying to litigate them out of existance w/ junk lawsuits. When the issue came before congress, Kerry left the campaign trail to sabotage this bill by adding amendments like the "assualt weapon" BAN extension amongst others. He then voted against the bill thereby letting these junk lawsuits continue.

As for him being a "lifelong hunter", read his interviews in Outdoor Life and Field and Stream. They're laughable. And if he is, why didn't he join the Congressional Sportsmans Cuacus after being in Congress for 20+ years?

S.1431 Look it up.

The NRA represents over4 million gun owners. They're not "actual" gun owners? The firearms industry is under attack by trial lawyers and gun banners trying to litigate them out of existance w/ junk lawsuits. When the issue came before congress, Kerry left the campaign trail to sabotage this bill by adding amendments like the "assualt weapon" BAN extension amongst others. He then voted against the bill thereby letting these junk lawsuits continue.

As for him being a "lifelong hunter", read his interviews in Outdoor Life and Field and Stream. They're laughable. And if he is, why didn't he join the Congressional Sportsmans Cuacus after being in Congress for 20+ years?

Senate bill 1431 (along with H.R. 2038) restricted the sale of assault weapons. Everyone agrees that some weapons should not be sold to the general public in the United States (otherwise why not allow people to own surface to air missile launchers or nuclear weapons?). Anytime someone wishes to engage in a reasoned debate about regulating weapons in this country NRA clones run around screaming about the 2nd Amendment. Here's a clue - not one of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is absolute. All come with caveats and restrictions.

And if you are looking for evidence that the NRA is wholly owned and controlled by gun manufacturers take a look at the NRA backed Senate Bill 1805. Called the Gun Industry Immunity bill, it was designed to shield the gun manufacturing industry from liability for making and selling faulty guns. So if a gun blows up in your hand and blinds you the gun lobby wants to be shielded from law suits. Bear arms, but not responsibility is their motto.

How does that serve the 4 million gun owning members of the NRA?

The bill was defeated with bi-partisan support.

The gun industry is already the most protected in the country, exempted from oversight by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Enactment of S.1805 would have made it the only industry in American history to enjoy blanket immunity.

And SCOTUS defines a militia as all able bodied men capable of bearing arms.
http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/sc/116us252.html
http://www.rkba.org/judicial/verdugo-urquidez.txt

The 2nd amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a state right.

Keep and bear arms means exactly that. To keep them and bear them for any lawful purpose whether that be collecting, hunting, or target shooting.I do not think that I understand what you mean by INDIVIDUAL right. It seems to me that the right is a federal right.

The first link you provided seems to support that the right to bear arms is for providing the federal government with a military force (ironically also that the intention of organizing a militia was to avoid the necessity of maintaining a large standing army)and that any state laws which would interfere with the ability of congress to call upon all able bodied men to join a national military organization or preventing them from volunteering to join such a group is unconstitutional. It also seems to state that only Congress has the right to legally form a militia so all these people running around in the woods with their guns playing war games calling themselves a militia are either an illegal organization (unless they were formed by an act of congress) or they are just playing cops and robbers basically.

The second link I got to the part where it said:
"The question presented by this case is whether the Fourth Amendment applies to the search and seizure by United States agents of property that is owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country. We hold that it does not."
and I stopped reading. It seems that the second link goes to a ruling saying that if you are not a citizen of the United States than you are not protected by the 4th amendment (search and seizer). I am not seeing what this has to do with the my interpretation of the 2nd amendment for US citizens to keep and bear arms. Maybe it explains it later but as I said when I got to the summary of the question and ruling of the case I stopped reading.

4th amendment for those that do not know:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I think you guys miss the point of this thread.

It's not an arguement that he will or will not ban them.

It's how hypocritical he is to pretend to be a friend of gun owners while having a voting record that is anti gun rights.

Being in Ohio I have the choice between voting for a senator that got a D from the NRA and a democrat that got an F from the NRA... :( Not much of a choice..

What the fuck are you smoking?

If he's not going to ban hunting rifles, then how exactly is he an enemy to hunters? If he's going to ban AK-47's, the only person he should be an enemy to are the gangs and such, but they already break countless laws, so who cares?

Only from the master flip flop. He was seen, (media awareness no doubt), hunting in Ohio, while attempting to gain more votes. But yet, his record is one of the worst there is on 2nd amendment rights. Heard from the brain waves from the Senators head. "I like you folks, I enjoy feeling your manly tesosterone while in the woods. But once I get you suckered into voting me in, ha, there won't be anymore trips like this"!

Just one of the boys. NOT!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20041021/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_guns

Just check his gun stats!
http://www.conservationcafe.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001406;p=0

Do any of those demonstrate Kerry banning guns?

Or is he just regulating them?

It seems to me like any intelligent person with a gun would know how dangerous they are and therefore how much they need to be regulated.

Wait a minute, untrained, unlicensed gun rights alarmists might be an important form of Bush supporter population control.

Kerry made a fool of himself hunting!

Now as I read that it does not give the right to own guns for collections. It does not give the right to own guns for hunting or any other shooting sport. It does not give the right to own guns for personal protection. It gives the right to own guns as part of a well regulated Militia to defend the nation.Does it say "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", or "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
So who has the power and responsibility to form and maintain these Militias? Well fortunately the constitution discusses that as well.Fortunately, the government has also specified what the militia is.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United StatesThe rest don't get governed, eh?

I own an AK47, and several other magazine fed rifles, and I've never commited a crime with them, I only use them at the range. Kerry's an asshole.

I own an AK47, and several other magazine fed rifles, and I've never commited a crime with them, I only use them at the range. Kerry's an asshole.

Shouldn't you be mailing a bomb somewhere?

Personally i see no need for hunting ammo to be able to penetrate Class II armor, but maybe the rabbits are wearing flak jackets now.
LOL!!!!!

Only from the master flip flop. He was seen, (media awareness no doubt), hunting in Ohio, while attempting to gain more votes. But yet, his record is one of the worst there is on 2nd amendment rights. Heard from the brain waves from the Senators head. "I like you folks, I enjoy feeling your manly tesosterone while in the woods. But once I get you suckered into voting me in, ha, there won't be anymore trips like this"!

Just one of the boys. NOT!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20041021/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_guns

Just check his gun stats!
http://www.conservationcafe.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=001406;p=0

He just wants to be allowed to own guns himself, and his friends. He just doesn't trust the people to own them.

I own an AK47, and several other magazine fed rifles, and I've never commited a crime with them, I only use them at the range. Kerry's an asshole.
All of those things may or may not be true. But dollars to doughnuts I'm betting that you know something at least about gun safety, proper firing, storing and handling practices? If so, you probably aren't the person that Kerry is worried about owning a gun. You know who they are worried about having them. Its the same people you're worried about having them, and bringing them uninvited into your home in the middle of the night. That's why gun control is important. And I know that its a pain to give up some freedom of what you're allowed to buy and own to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals, but its important. Maybe less important for you than for the 76 year old grandmother who can't own a gun to protect herself.

He just wants to be allowed to own guns himself, and his friends. He just doesn't trust the people to own them.
There is nothing wrong with responsible gun use. But how can you tell who's gonna be responsible with it?

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where you can be reasonably sure that the "bad people" can't easily get a hold of a gun?

I know you'll say that they'll just get guns illegally, but the fairly comprehensive banning of guns here in Australia seems to work pretty well. I definitely have never thought "I'd feel so much safer if I had a gun or two in the house".

It doesn't work too well here in the UK. Since just about everything short of slingshots was banned or heavily regulated, violent and gun crime has risen incredibly. Seems the violent criminals know that nobody apart from the police will stop them - and you think they are going to wait for you to pick the phone up and dial 999? Sure, the penalty for illegal ownership of a gun is severe. The penalty against armed robbery is severe. However people still carry them out. (http://icberkshire.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/sloughandwindsor/tm_objectid=14787907&method=full&siteid=50102&headline=saddam-mask-armed-raider-faces-jail-term-name_page.html)

Oh, most adults can still get air rifles rated at 12 ft/lb pressure or lower - for the moment. So once you piss the guy off with your first shot, you can ask him to sit back, rub his bruised arse and wait while you open the breech, insert the next pellet, close the breech, cock the rifle...

With regards lethal weapons, this country seems to set a disturbing precedent of "that guy committed a crime, so we'll punish everybody."

There is nothing wrong with responsible gun use. But how can you tell who's gonna be responsible with it?

Innocent until proven guilty.

I can understand why some people might not like that idea though.

Keep a register of people with assault weapons by all means, but don't be punishing the whole for the crimes of the individual.

Only 3 things you can come up with. And you are biased against them in the first place so I guess that is to be expected.

1) Yes, you can hunt with assault style weapons. Concidering it's often cosmetics that determine when something is an "assault" weapon.
2) You can target shoot. As in paper targets. As in not a killing spree. It is a popular pass time.
3) You can plink with an assault weapon. Just going out and shoot paint cans, 2 liter bottles of water, pumpkins. It is also a popular pass time, and not a killing spree... unless you belong to PETIO: People for the Ethical Treatment of Inanimate Objects.
4) You can collect them and never shoot them at all.
5) You can have them for self defense.

You are being narrow minded, but I'm coming to expect that from the anti-(guns, or abortion, or just about anything) crowd. Agree with you and it's all good, disagree with you and become evil.... that's the way it seems to work.


However, the true measure of any civilization is whether its participants do everything and anything simply because it is within their power to do so, or whether they elect to moderate their various lusts with the advanced traits of maturity.

The U.S. is a vastly immature culture, wrestling with its overwhelming technological and teeming resource richness at the same time it whinges and moans about never having enough -- never enough money, never enough freedoms, never enough power, never enough anything. Childish, really.

Whatever it is that makes the elite ponces is apparently the same thing that makes the hoi polloi the hoi polloi. We all seem to be wildly incapable of dealing with our fears of privation, fears of subservience, and fears of being dominated by someone of a different IQ or a different melanin ratio or a different religious belief or a... well, you get the drift.

To my way of thinking, there's nothing particularly "free" in a culture that is frighteningly overwhelmed by the presence of something in the neighborhood of 200 million handguns... especially when we have so many millions of "freedom advocates" screaming that the 200 million isn't enough. How many more hundreds of millions of guns will we need to feel we are "truly" free??

I try to imagine how "free" I would feel if I were driving down the interstate with my 50 loaded guns, knowing that every other vehicle on the highway was similarly stocked and loaded. I try. Really. I really do. No, really!

*bleep* *bleep* Moron detected!

Kerry didn't want to ban all guns, just assult weapons!

kerry himself owns an ak-47..he also wants to ban certain shotguns..
couple of years back i covered a story where two fellows fired over 60 rounds from ak's at the local captain d's..now i believe that was during the time of a ban on assault weopons ...the criminals will always have guns..the gov't will always have guns..why should i, a law abiding citizen be the only one not having a gun when i am the only one of the 3 not planning on shooting anyone with it...unless they are threatening my life and liberty

Senate bill 1431 (along with H.R. 2038) restricted the sale of assault weapons. Everyone agrees that some weapons should not be sold to the general public in the United States (otherwise why not allow people to own surface to air missile launchers or nuclear weapons?). Anytime someone wishes to engage in a reasoned debate about regulating weapons in this country NRA clones run around screaming about the 2nd Amendment. Here's a clue - not one of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is absolute. All come with caveats and restrictions.

And if you are looking for evidence that the NRA is wholly owned and controlled by gun manufacturers take a look at the NRA backed Senate Bill 1805. Called the Gun Industry Immunity bill, it was designed to shield the gun manufacturing industry from liability for making and selling faulty guns. So if a gun blows up in your hand and blinds you the gun lobby wants to be shielded from law suits. Bear arms, but not responsibility is their motto.

How does that serve the 4 million gun owning members of the NRA?

The bill was defeated with bi-partisan support.

The gun industry is already the most protected in the country, exempted from oversight by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Enactment of S.1805 would have made it the only industry in American history to enjoy blanket immunity.


Are you really that niave?

S.1431 expands the Clinton assault weapon ban with vague wording that can potentially include all semi-auto shotguns and any rifle that can hold a clip. That includes the one Kerry was given at a rally the other month.

The Liability act DID NOT protect the industry from faulty manufacturing. It prevented junk lawsuits from third parties stating that the gun used in the crime caused the crime, effectively litigating the industry to death.. The bill failed when senators such as Kerry, Feinstien and Kennedy managed to pass amendments to it that included the extension of the Clinton ban.

How does that serve the members of the NRA or anybody who owns a firearm, including the military. The manufactures of military weapons have also been hit by these junk litigations.

"Bear arms, but not responsibility is their motto."? Find me that quote anywhere but from you.

However, the true measure of any civilization is whether its participants do everything and anything simply because it is within their power to do so, or whether they elect to moderate their various lusts with the advanced traits of maturity.

I find this statement amusing. I don't measure civilizations thus. In history books, I don't read about what the Babylonians did with their freedoms or lack thereof. Only in extreme circumstances do those things become defining factors. A civilization is judged on its success as a civilization, not by individual citizens (with the exception of leaders, which, as a symbolic figurehead, can be used to define a culture, especially if they had a profound impact thus).

The U.S. is a vastly immature culture, wrestling with its overwhelming technological and teeming resource richness at the same time it whinges and moans about never having enough -- never enough money, never enough freedoms, never enough power, never enough anything. Childish, really.

And you know this from your vast personal knowledge of history. If you remember correctly, the United States is a conglomeration of thousands of migrants, all bringing their ages-old cultures and ideals. In addition, just like any other culture, new defining characteristics are spawned as the nation grows. Britain is a culture centuries older than the US, and yet it continues to mold and modify its culture with each decade. To steer back to the topic at hand, their new "firearmless" culture is less than a century old (Thank you to the individual who brought up the unfortunately high crime rate in the British Isles. While I abhor the fact that such a vicious proof be required, it truly is the eye opener many anti-gun proponents need).

Whatever it is that makes the elite ponces is apparently the same thing that makes the hoi polloi the hoi polloi. We all seem to be wildly incapable of dealing with our fears of privation, fears of subservience, and fears of being dominated by someone of a different IQ or a different melanin ratio or a different religious belief or a... well, you get the drift.

I don't quite see your point. Americans enjoy their freedoms, of that there is no doubt. But the number of people that don't have to answer to someone else is pretty small. As I can speak for no one but myself, I am a soldier, I have soldiers to whom I give orders and expect them carried out, but I sure as hell don't fear the men appointed over me. That said, I won't be oppressed.

To my way of thinking, there's nothing particularly "free" in a culture that is frighteningly overwhelmed by the presence of something in the neighborhood of 200 million handguns... especially when we have so many millions of "freedom advocates" screaming that the 200 million isn't enough. How many more hundreds of millions of guns will we need to feel we are "truly" free??

I try to imagine how "free" I would feel if I were driving down the interstate with my 50 loaded guns, knowing that every other vehicle on the highway was similarly stocked and loaded. I try. Really. I really do. No, really!

I feel extremely free knowing that I am similarly equipped as my neighbors. I'm afraid I don't understand how someone would feel free not being similarly equipped.

Does it say "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", or "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?Um ... nothing there supports the right of an individual to own a gun outside of the scope of providing for "the security of a free state". Your bold text does not change my interpretation of the second amendment which centers around "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

I am not advocating that guns should be banned. I am advocating that owning a gun as a "collection piece" or the right to own a gun to hunt or target shooting (unless in the course of firearm training) while it might currently be legal it is not protected by the Constitution.

So far everybody that has quoted me and responded to my posts is arguing my point for me and has only shown evidence to support my blief that the right to own a gun in accordance of military service or potential military service is protected by the constitution but that beyond that it is not protected by the Constitution of the United States.

As I said before, "I think that a person should have the right to own certain fire arms"

for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United StatesThe rest don't get governed, eh?If you have a problem with the wording of that portion of the Constitution I am not the person to bring it up with.

As for your question, you have already pointed out that pretty much includes everyone and those that are exempt from service in a Militia are not necissarily exempt from "employed in the Service of the United States". For those that might be exempt from serving the United States then I would argue that the while they might currently have a legal right to own guns that right is not protected by the US Constitution.

I am not arguing that legality of a persons right to own a gun. Obviously people do have the legal right to own guns. I am arguing that the 2nd amendment does not grant all people the right to own any gun they want for any reason they want.

You left out that nice little piece about the right of the people to keep and bear arms too.

Straight from the Bill O' Rights:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And gun control never has and never will work. Just look at the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Saddam's Iraq, Mao's China, etc.

Sure, you may not NEED that assault rifle with the high capacity magazine . . . but there's a lot of things in life you don't NEED . . . .

If you have a problem with the wording of that portion of the Constitution I am not the person to bring it up with.I'm pointing out that how it's worded, those who are not called up to serve don't have to be controlled by the government.
I am arguing that the 2nd amendment does not grant all people the right to own any gun they want for any reason they want.Well, the constitution doesn't say we're allowed to have ANY arms we want to...Just arms.Well, we partly agree...

I'm pointing out that how it's worded, those who are not called up to serve don't have to be controlled by the government.ah, I appologize, I misunderstood you. It looks like we partially agree on this point to.

I think that the 2nd amendment is what keeps the issue of a draft alive. I personally think that if a draft is passed again than registered gun owners not currently serving in the service of teh US should be the first to be selected for service.

You can't hunt effectively with an AK47.
Hunting game and massacring humans are two different things, apples and oranges.
So are the weapons involved.

You can't hunt effectively with an AK47.I think 7.62x39mm ammunition is useful for medium-game hunting.

I hope people here don't hunt with semi-autos using armour piercing ammo ... with a few tracers to help the animal along.

"Kerry wants to ban guns"? You Constitution forbids that. There's nothing wrong with banning assault weapons. You don't use them to hunt. The only people who really want automatic assault weapons legalised are criminals, gangsters, terrorists and the doctrinaire right.

Straight from the Bill O' Rights:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And gun control never has and never will work. Just look at the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Saddam's Iraq, Mao's China, etc.
Those guys were gun-control nuts, but for more successful gun control policies look at Britain and most other European countries (except Germany).

If you're using that 2nd Amendment quote to justify gun freedom, how do you argue against the right to keep and bear nuclear arms? Surely you don't think it's OK for just anyone who has the ability to make or buy atomic bombs do you?

He just wants to be allowed to own guns himself, and his friends. He just doesn't trust the people to own them.
You really should be less obvious with your puppets, Eutrusca. ;)

I hope people here don't hunt with semi-autos using armour piercing ammo ... with a few tracers to help the animal along.

That wouldn't be a good idea. Then the rest of the herd will know where you are and start shooting back (ie crocodile dundee). :)

I hope people here don't hunt with semi-autos using armour piercing ammo ... with a few tracers to help the animal along.Hmm...People seem to be associating assault weapons with armor-piercing ammo a lot. :\ What's wrong with using tracers?
You Constitution forbids that.We could ban guns but allow nuclear bombs.
You don't use them to hunt.Some people do.automatic assault weaponsAssault weapons are by definition NOT automatic!
rightWrong.

"Kerry wants to ban guns"? You Constitution forbids that. There's nothing wrong with banning assault weapons. You don't use them to hunt. The only people who really want automatic assault weapons legalised are criminals, gangsters, terrorists and the doctrinaire right.

assault weapons are SEMI-AUTOMATIC

AUTOMATIC weapons have been heavily regulated since the 1930s.

Those guys were gun-control nuts, but for more successful gun control policies look at Britain and most other European countries (except Germany).

If you're using that 2nd Amendment quote to justify gun freedom, how do you argue against the right to keep and bear nuclear arms? Surely you don't think it's OK for just anyone who has the ability to make or buy atomic bombs do you?

You consider Britain successful? Try complete. Look at their crime rate since those laws went into effect.

As for the nukes arguement (nice slippery slope BTW):

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute`s constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded the case because it had concluded that:

* In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.1

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."2 In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.


1 According to Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 15 of the Constitution, the functions of the militia are: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions. . . ." Thus, the militia has a law enforcement function, a quasi law enforcement/quasi military function, and a military function. As a result, those firearms which are "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment are those which could be used to fulfill any of these functions.

2 Thus, when combined with the militia test--see bartnote 1--it is clear that cannons, trench mortars, rockets, missiles, anti-tank weapons (such as bazookas), and bombs would not be "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Also since you seem to like slippery slopes : Britain registered, then regulated, then banned but it will never touch hunting right? Wrong, the parliament is trying to force through a hunting ban. Boy sure sounds familiar.

assault weapons are SEMI-AUTOMATIC

AUTOMATIC weapons have been heavily regulated since the 1930s.

It's the standard anti-gun tactic. Blatantly lie about what the different guns are. The Brady Campaign still states that "assault weapons" are for "spraying targets". Kerry stated that the AW ban prevented terrorists from getting fully auto weapons (3rd debate) and various media sources would show fully auto weapons in action when talking about the ban.

The other standards are the "need" for "assault weapons", save the children, slippery slope to nukes, you're less likely to be hurt by a criminal if you don't resist(or only w/ a bat etc), and the 2nd amendment only applies to the Natl. Guard.

Why do so many of you sling weapon numbers about? Do you even know what it is? Do you even know it's ILLEGAL to own in the US, unless you are one of the few with a ClassIII license. Very few people in the US have AK47s, that type of weapon has been banned since 1934, even before it's first prototype was built in 1946!

For those that are unsure, an AK47 is a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon = BAD MOJO in the US!

Assualt Weapon. Can somebody please enlighten the thread about this weapon? Before the clinton era, folks had a civilian version of military style weapons, they were called 'Sportsters'. But, once politics got involved, they needed a NAME that associated something AWFUL with these weapons, so along came a name namer and BAM, ASSUALT WEAPON was coined. Oh, it's so bad, and evil, we MUST DESTROY them. Now you know the rest of the story!

A self loading weapon has some type of ammuntion source, and loads another round into the chamber during the complete firing sequence. There are two types:

Fully Automatic; pull trigger, it continues to fire.

Semi-Automatic; pull trigger, 1 round fires, and the next is loaded, but can't fire until the trigger is released (cocking mechanism) and pulled again!

Why do so many of you sling weapon numbers about? Do you even know what it is? Do you even know it's ILLEGAL to own in the US, unless you are one of the few with a ClassIII license. Very few people in the US have AK47s, that type of weapon has been banned since 1934, even before it's first prototype was built in 1946!

For those that are unsure, an AK47 is a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon = BAD MOJO in the US!

Assualt Weapon. Can somebody please enlighten the thread about this weapon? Before the clinton era, folks had a civilian version of military style weapons, they were called 'Sportsters'. But, once politics got involved, they needed a NAME that associated something AWFUL with these weapons, so along came a name namer and BAM, ASSUALT WEAPON was coined. Oh, it's so bad, and evil, we MUST DESTROY them. Now you know the rest of the story!

A self loading weapon has some type of ammuntion source, and loads another round into the chamber during the complete firing sequence. There are two types:

Fully Automatic; pull trigger, it continues to fire.

Semi-Automatic; pull trigger, 1 round fires, and the next is loaded, but can't fire until the trigger is released (cocking mechanism) and pulled again!

But you don't NEED an assualt weapon to hunt. Nobody uses them to hunt. All you have to do is file down a pin to make it fully-automatic. You must be a criminal to support this. So you hunt w/ a nuke? Kerry will never go after hunting weapons, he's a lifelong hunter himself. He even said he supports the 2nd amendment as it is interpreted in this country.

Why do so many of you sling weapon numbers about? Do you even know what it is? Do you even know it's ILLEGAL to own in the US, unless you are one of the few with a ClassIII license.Are those questions for the anti-gun side, or all of us?
that type of weapon has been banned since 1934Regulated, not banned.
Can somebody please enlighten the thread about this weapon?Sure.(30) The term “semiautomatic assault weapon” means—
(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as—
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70);
(iv) Colt AR–15;
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M–10, M–11, M–11/9, and M–12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC–9, TEC–DC9 and TEC–22; and
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;
(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of—
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
All you have to do is file down a pin to make it fully-automatic.That only works on certain guns.
You must be a criminal to support this.Flame?

Are those questions for the anti-gun side, or all of us?
Regulated, not banned.
Sure.
That only works on certain guns.
Flame?

I was being sarcastic. I'm VERY pro-gun. Look at my previous posts.

S.1431 is trying to increase the guns regulated/banned by the CAW ban. It includes a generality " "any characteristic that can function as a grip." (sec.2(a)(30)(D)(iii) and (iv), and (b)(41)" under both semi-auto shotguns and rifles that can effectively include every one made, including the one Kerry was given at a rally. Now who wrote this and who co-sponsored it? Hmmm. They won't go after the hunters.

One Random Question.
Bush or Kerry?

Bush Bush Bush!!!

One Random Question.
Bush or Kerry?

Bush or Kerry what?

I was being sarcastic. I'm VERY pro-gun.Ah.
S.1431 is trying to increase the guns regulated/banned by the CAW ban.Where can I read S.1431? I've found its status, but not its text. :\
Bush or Kerry?No. :D

I don't hunt. But I do own a magazine fed rifle that the Senator will ban if he is elected.Ah, but does he? Is there really any inconsistency here?

Kerry owns a Chinese Assault Rifle.

Society is fragile due to the fact that it is run by human apes.
So i can understand if someone wants to own weapons in case of revolutions and anarki. :sniper:

Ah.
Where can I read S.1431? I've found its status, but not its text. :\
No. :D

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query

If that doesn't work, go here:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_three_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home.htm

and type in s.1431

Kerry owns a Chinese Assault Rifle.

That story changed as well. It became a single shot russian bolt action (no type named) that was given to him by a friend. An "aide" filled out the questionaire in the 1st person.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query

If that doesn't work, go here:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_three_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home.htm

and type in s.1431Thank you. How are you supposed to use a rifle without a forward grip? O.o

But you don't NEED an assualt weapon to hunt.Truer words have not been spoken recently. All you have to do is file down a pin to make it fully-automatic.Twenty years ago yes. But unless you run a mill it won't happen with modern guns. You must be a criminal to support this.Even they are having a rough go, that's why they use the Southern trade route. Irregardless of the political status, they will have automatic weapons. Kerry will never go after hunting weapons, he's a lifelong hunter himself. He even said he supports the 2nd amendment as it is interpreted in this country.I can feel and smell the sarcasm from that one. I enjoyed the caption on yesterday news about the Senator. Something along the lines, now that he hunts, when he goes with the men, his sights are really set on votes! Even the free liberal media knows better! I can't find the damn link, or I'd post it. Not long ago, and may have something to do with the current events, his take on 'his' gun ban was posted. What he really wants to do, is:
1) Ban all detacable magazine fed semi-auto rifles.
2) Ban certain models of semi-auto shotguns.
3) Limit all magazine fed pistols to 6 rds.

He did not address the 7-8 shot revolvers.

#1 covers more than 'sportsters', my older Remington magazine fed 30.06 falls into that group. I don't hunt, but many a hunters use the magazine fed Remington 30.06 to hunt! So, you might want to re-think his philosophy!

According to a recent poll 3 out of 4 self-described Bush supporters STILL believe that pre-war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein provided “substantial support” to al Qaeda. In fact the number of Bushies who believe this actually WENT UP (!) after publication of a series of well-publicized official government reports debunking both notions.

These people are as willfully ignorant as the man they support.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...965431098444910

Thank you. How are you supposed to use a rifle without a forward grip? O.o

exactly. That's the point. Combine that w/ the attempted ban on ammunition and there goes the neighborhood.

I'm certain there's no concern from people that do not and will not own a weapon, but there are places in this country where a gun in the household is a necessity, and there are real fears from many American citizens that the US government will force a revolution.

According to a recent poll
Thanks for sharing this (not a) GUN ISSUE! :sniper:
If you are looking to be flamed, hang out awhile!
If you want to be :sniper: you already have been.
If you have anything to say about the GUN ISSUE, don't, it'll probably be some liberal supporting buullshit anyway.

According to a recent poll 3 out of 4 self-described Bush supporters STILL believe that pre-war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein provided ?substantial support? to al Qaeda. In fact the number of Bushies who believe this actually WENT UP (!) after publication of a series of well-publicized official government reports debunking both notions.

These people are as willfully ignorant as the man they support.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...965431098444910

And you still believe that S.1805 would keep people from suing the gun industry for any purpose and that it failed w/ bipartisan support w/o the addition of poison pill amendments that Kerry voted for. " Called the Gun Industry Immunity bill, it was designed to shield the gun manufacturing industry from liability for making and selling faulty guns. So if a gun blows up in your hand and blinds you the gun lobby wants to be shielded from law suits. Bear arms, but not responsibility is their motto. "

Shall we continue w/ the accusations of ignorance?

Senate bill 1431 (along with H.R. 2038) restricted the sale of assault weapons. Everyone agrees that some weapons should not be sold to the general public in the United States (otherwise why not allow people to own surface to air missile launchers or nuclear weapons?). Anytime someone wishes to engage in a reasoned debate about regulating weapons in this country NRA clones run around screaming about the 2nd Amendment. Here's a clue - not one of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is absolute. All come with caveats and restrictions.

And if you are looking for evidence that the NRA is wholly owned and controlled by gun manufacturers take a look at the NRA backed Senate Bill 1805. Called the Gun Industry Immunity bill, it was designed to shield the gun manufacturing industry from liability for making and selling faulty guns. So if a gun blows up in your hand and blinds you the gun lobby wants to be shielded from law suits. Bear arms, but not responsibility is their motto.

How does that serve the 4 million gun owning members of the NRA?

The bill was defeated with bi-partisan support.

The gun industry is already the most protected in the country, exempted from oversight by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Enactment of S.1805 would have made it the only industry in American history to enjoy blanket immunity.

Asss.-boy, stick to your little pictures - words and ideas aren't your strong suit. I have posted several messages about guns (see above). My last post about the 3 out of 4 Bush supporters still believing a falsehood about WMD goes to the point that these people see and believe what they want to. Whether the issue is guns here or WMD in Iraq, the Bushies and their NRA supporters are intellectually dishonest.

They are more concerned about beating liberal Democrats than they are about making America safe.

exactly. That's the point.Yea, I think so...Yet we'd still be able to get machine guns with a folding or telescoping stock, a threaded barrel, a pistol grip, a forward grip, AND a barrel shroud. :\

Asss.-boy, stick to your little pictures - words and ideas aren't your strong suit. I have posted several messages about guns (see above). My last post about the 3 out of 4 Bush supporters still believing a falsehood about WMD goes to the point that these people see and believe what they want to. Whether the issue is guns here or WMD in Iraq, the Bushies and their NRA supporters are intellectually dishonest.

They are more concerned about beating liberal Democrats than they are about making America safe.

Nice flame. You also quoted your own belief in a falsehood as well as the whole slippery-slope to heavy weapons thing. A topic that has been rehashed many times. The SCOTUS has determined that military grade small arms are considered "arms" and that heavy weapons are not arms. I pointed out your mistake as to S 1805 and yet you still quote it. Who's being "intellectually dishonest"?

Yea, I think so...Yet we'd still be able to get machine guns with a folding or telescoping stock, a threaded barrel, a pistol grip, a forward grip, AND a barrel shroud. :\

But we wouldn't be able to get ammunition for it.

Correction,he wants to ban assault rifles from being sold to civilians.

Mighty Asssassin
Cool.
But, if you want to be obtuse about this thread, go start your own!
I reserve my best for my real life, as anybody on the internet can be whoever they want. ;)

But we wouldn't be able to get ammunition for it.Oops...We could get "destructive devices" still.
(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
Correction,he wants to ban assault rifles from being sold to civilians.Assault rifles (technical term) are not assault weapons (legal term).

"Kerry wants to ban guns"? You Constitution forbids that. There's nothing wrong with banning assault weapons. You don't use them to hunt. The only people who really want automatic assault weapons legalised are criminals, gangsters, terrorists and the doctrinaire right.

I apologize for my lack of decorum, but what an incredibly inane statement. Why on earth would criminals, gangsters, and terrorists want automatic weapons legal?

They have the means even now to acquire everything they need without following all those pesky rules anyway.

And to clear up some of the language here...

There is a substantial difference between the word "ban" and the word "regulate." By all means firearm purchase and ownership should be monitored and regulated by an unbiased third party, be that the government or some other social organization, but there should only be a ban on those things which require controls beyond human defense (read: weapons of mass destruction). Ban nuclear weaponry, please, but outside of artillary, rocketry, and NBC weaponry, no small arm is "banned" in the United States. With the proper licensure and permits, anyone can own a Barrett Light .50 or an M203 grenade launcher. The licensure and permit process is lengthy and very expensive (or requires involvement in certain civic professions), but it is available.

This could of course lead to the arguement that only the wealthy may own military grade weaponry. If someone wishes to initiate such a debate, I will retort, but until then, I will let sleeping dogs lie.

Now on to the hunting issue. First off, I would like to say that yes, in fact, you can hunt with an assault weapon (as defined by the previously posted article). This will be especially true should the new bill pass, since it greatly broadens the definition. I will share but one piece of anecdotal evidence from personal experience. On my family's property in Northern Nevada, I have enjoyed hours of hunting bobcat with a .223 caliber Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. I chose this weapon because it was lightweight, allowed for rapid reloading (I was using 5-shot detachable box magazines), allowed for collapse of the stock (very convienent when your prey is 300 meters up a cliff face and you have to fetch the body), was accurate, and fun to shoot. This weapon is a casualty of the aforementioned article. In addition to the things I have previously stated, it also can be quite easily converted with trigger drop to fire fully automatically (not to mention the perfectly legal autofire simulators such as the hellfire trigger system). It can include a threaded barrel and has a rather impressive line of bayonets available. It breaks every rule of the article. All that, and lo-and-behold, it is an extremely effective and capable hunting rifle.

Now, do I need a fully automatic M-14 to hunt with, probably not, but the hunting issue is far from the only issue. It is, unfortunately one of the most often misrepresented.

Correction,he wants to ban assault rifles from being sold to civilians.

Assault rifles can only be purchased presently w/ a Class3 FFL. He wants to ban "assault weapons" which include effectively every semi-auto rifle and shotgun made.

Nice flame. You also quoted your own belief in a falsehood as well as the whole slippery-slope to heavy weapons thing. A topic that has been rehashed many times. The SCOTUS has determined that military grade small arms are considered "arms" and that heavy weapons are not arms. I pointed out your mistake as to S 1805 and yet you still quote it. Who's being "intellectually dishonest"?

You gave your opinion, which is not the same as refuting my argument. The Gun Industry Immunity bill attempted to:

Prohibit any individual, organization, city, or state from suing gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms unless they knowingly violated a federal law or created a defective product; and
Prohibit civil lawsuits in cases where:

A manufacturer knew but still supplied firearms to a retail dealer who intentionally sold firearms to criminals;

A manufacturer advertised a firearm as fingerprint proof to attract criminals to that particular model of gun;

A retail dealer was caught on tape selling firearms without a background check;

A retail dealer was caught on tape advising a criminal to use a straw purchaser to buy a gun;

A retail dealer fails to keep the records required by law to trace guns recovered in crimes;

A child is killed by an accidental discharge from a firearm without a load indicator to show that cartridge is in the chamber;

A child is killed by an accidental discharge from a firearm without a safety; and

Gun manufacturers and dealers are found to conspire to flood the firearms market in high crime areas.

Do you consider these issues "junk lawsuits?" Do you also content that ANY attempts to regulate the gun industry constitutes banning guns?

You gave your opinion, which is not the same as refuting my argument. The Gun Industry Immunity bill attempted to:

Prohibit any individual, organization, city, or state from suing gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms unless they knowingly violated a federal law or created a defective product; and
Prohibit civil lawsuits in cases where:

A manufacturer knew but still supplied firearms to a retail dealer who intentionally sold firearms to criminals;

A manufacturer advertised a firearm as fingerprint proof to attract criminals to that particular model of gun;

A retail dealer was caught on tape selling firearms without a background check;

A retail dealer was caught on tape advising a criminal to use a straw purchaser to buy a gun;

A retail dealer fails to keep the records required by law to trace guns recovered in crimes;

A child is killed by an accidental discharge from a firearm without a load indicator to show that cartridge is in the chamber;

A child is killed by an accidental discharge from a firearm without a safety; and

Gun manufacturers and dealers are found to conspire to flood the firearms market in high crime areas.

Do you consider these issues "junk lawsuits?" Do you also content that ANY attempts to regulate the gun industry constitutes banning guns?


You just proved my point. You stated previously that the bill would prevent lawsuits due to faulty product. Now you post this refuting it.

Those are all junk lawsuits in that none of those things have been proven and the lawsuits are brought up in order to bankrupt the industry.

It is already heavily regulated as to safety and quality as well as sales to the public. further regulation along the lines is unnessesary.

Show the link that you got your information from.

and BTW it is not the "Gun Industry Immunity bill", that's anti-gun propaganda.

It is called the 'Protection of LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS Act'.

The Gun Industry Immunity Bill was defeated 90-8 (with 2 abstaining). That seems pretty bi-partisan to me.

If you are interested in reading the text of the actual bill go to: http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/S1805%2Epdf

Here's the whole thing for those continuing to spout:
108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1805

To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

October 31, 2003

Mr. CRAIG introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

November 3, 2003

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

A BILL

To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds the following:

(1) Citizens have a right, protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms.

(2) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.

(3) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.

(4) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.

(5) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.

(6) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this Act are as follows:

(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products for the harm caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.

(2) To preserve a citizen's access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.

(3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.

(4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.

(5) To protect the right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, of manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and trade associations, to speak freely, to assemble peaceably, and to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTIONS IN FEDERAL OR STATE COURT.

(a) IN GENERAL- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.

(b) DISMISSAL OF PENDING ACTIONS- A qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of enactment of this Act shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS- The term `engaged in the business' has the meaning given that term in section 921(a)(21) of title 18, United States Code, and, as applied to a seller of ammunition, means a person who devotes, time, attention, and labor to the sale of ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of ammunition.

(2) MANUFACTURER- The term `manufacturer' means, with respect to a qualified product, a person who is engaged in the business of manufacturing the product in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such a manufacturer under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.

(3) PERSON- The term `person' means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other entity, including any governmental entity.

(4) QUALIFIED PRODUCT- The term `qualified product' means a firearm (as defined in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code), including any antique firearm (as defined in section 921(a)(16) of such title), or ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17)(A) of such title), or a component part of a firearm or ammunition, that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

(5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--

(i) an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted;

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including--

(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law;

(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or

(III) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;

(iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or

(v) an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable.

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

(C) REASONABLY FORESEEABLE- As used in subparagraph (A)(v), the term `reasonably foreseeable' does not include any criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product, other than possessory offenses.

(D) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- The exceptions described in subparagraph (A) shall be construed so as not to be in conflict and no provision of this Act shall be construed to create a Federal private cause of action or remedy.

(6) SELLER- The term `seller' means, with respect to a qualified product--

(A) an importer (as defined in section 921(a)(9) of title 18, United States Code) who is engaged in the business as such an importer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such an importer under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code;

(B) a dealer (as defined in section 921(a)(11) of title 18, United States Code) who is engaged in the business as such a dealer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed to engage in business as such a dealer under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code; or

(C) a person engaged in the business of selling ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17) of title 18, United States Code) in interstate or foreign commerce at the wholesale or retail level, who is in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws.

(7) STATE- The term `State' includes each of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States, and any political subdivision of any such place.

(8) TRADE ASSOCIATION- The term `trade association' means any association or business organization (whether or not incorporated under Federal or State law)--

(A) that is not operated for profit;

(B) of which 2 or more members are manufacturers or sellers of a qualified product; and

(C) that is involved in promoting the business interests of its members, including organizing, advising, or representing its members with respect to their business, legislative or legal activities in relation to the manufacture, importation, or sale of a qualified product.

(9) UNLAWFUL MISUSE- The term `unlawful misuse' means conduct that violates a statute, ordinance, or regulation as it relates to the use of a qualified product.

Calendar No. 363

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1805

A BILL

To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

It is called the 'Protection of LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS Act'.

Yes, and Bush's plan to give polluters free reign is called "Clear Skies," his plan to give the forestry industry carte blanc to cut trees is called "Healthy Forests," and his freedom infringing legislation is called "The Patriot Act."

Let's call things by what they are. This was the Gun Industry Immunity Bill.

The Gun Industry Immunity Bill was defeated 90-8 (with 2 abstaining). That seems pretty bi-partisan to me.

If you are interested in reading the text of the actual bill go to: http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/S1805%2Epdf

After amendments were passed banning most center-fire ammunition and extending the CAW ban. Those were added (and voted for by Kerry) specifically to kill support for this bill. (Senate votes 27 and 28.)

I've read the actual bill (posted above). Apparently you haven't as you specifically mention that lawsuits prevented are specifically mentioned in section 5 "qualified civil liability actions"

You gave your opinion, which is not the same as refuting my argument. The Gun Industry Immunity bill attempted to:

Boy, there was a whole lot of things in that bill that didn't belong. Legislators are usually relatively intelligent individuals. Unfortunately they also tend to be underhanded (a stereotype, to be sure, but I feel justified considering the track record).

I would like to introduce you to what is called "Poison-pill Legislative writing"

Bills are seldom written by the senator or congressman that initiates it onto the floor. This led, in a bygone era, to the concept of mass-authoring of bills. In other words, once a bill is presented, fellow legislators will add or detract from the bill. In our country's youth, this was often to make the bill more viable for all the regions represented and to insure nothing was missed. Now, it is a means used to plant partisan (or worse, special-interest) legislation into a bill. In addition, a senator or congressman who wishes a bill to die, will add something inane or ridiculous to the bill. This is known as a "poison pill." This forces the floor to consider whether it is worth having this addition or not. Most often,the bill dies, and the entire process must begin again. This type of political manuevering, along with such things as the filibuster, is common, and can skew the under-educated's view when tracking such things as voting records or political stances.

To argue in favor or against Kerry or Bush based on a poisoned bill is unwise. Kerry is a political sensationalist. If he thinks he can rally the liberal vote by saying that even though he is an avid firearms enthusiast, he will support mounting controls on firearms, he will say it. I do believe that once he is in office, firearms will be pretty far down on his agenda (Unfortunately, his past does not speak well for him, so this is purely personal biased opinion on my part) Bush is a zealous religious panderer. He will side with the conservative NRA in hopes of rallying the reactionary right, and will do as he has in the past, ignore firearms issues. Those of us that honor and appreciate our freedoms in this matter have little to fret while these two have to worry about the fatter fish they need to fry over the next 4 years.

Yes, and Bush's plan to give polluters free reign is called "Clear Skies," his plan to give the forestry industry carte blanc to cut trees is called "Healthy Forests," and his freedom infringing legislation is called "The Patriot Act."

Let's call things by what they are. This was the Gun Industry Immunity Bill.

Immunity from what?

Only immune from 3rd parties trying to bankrupt the industry. Nice distortion of the topic.

What? No reply as to how you refuted your own post.

Boy, there was a whole lot of things in that bill that didn't belong. Legislators are usually relatively intelligent individuals. Unfortunately they also tend to be underhanded (a stereotype, to be sure, but I feel justified considering the track record).

I would like to introduce you to what is called "Poison-pill Legislative writing"

Bills are seldom written by the senator or congressman that initiates it onto the floor. This led, in a bygone era, to the concept of mass-authoring of bills. In other words, once a bill is presented, fellow legislators will add or detract from the bill. In our country's youth, this was often to make the bill more viable for all the regions represented and to insure nothing was missed. Now, it is a means used to plant partisan (or worse, special-interest) legislation into a bill. In addition, a senator or congressman who wishes a bill to die, will add something inane or ridiculous to the bill. This is known as a "poison pill." This forces the floor to consider whether it is worth having this addition or not. Most often,the bill dies, and the entire process must begin again. This type of political manuevering, along with such things as the filibuster, is common, and can skew the under-educated's view when tracking such things as voting records or political stances.



Nothing that Ogiek mentioned was in the bill. except the lawsuits for faulty product (but he contradicted himself on that). The poison pill amendments added were a ban on ammunition and an extesion of the CAW ban making the bill viable for noone.

Bush has ignored gun issues and will hopefully do so in the future. I feel Kerry will follow his mentors (Kennedy) lead and will push for more "regulation" and outright bans.

The Gun Industry? Most of the guns I own are foreign. Most of the illegal guns in America are foreign, the only "gun/rifle" in America that is making money are shotguns and hunting rifles.

There is a larger philosophical issue here than a bad bill, supportered by the gun industry, and defeated by the Senate. Is every attempt to regulate the gun industry to be seen as a full scale assault on the 2nd Amendment? Cannot reasonable people say yes, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the rights of citizens to own guns, but society has a right to regulate the sale and manufacture of those weapons to insure that guns are safe and stay out of the hands of those who would use them to commit crimes?

How is the 2nd Amendment damaged by ending the sale of guns at gun shows? Do we really infringe on people's rights by requiring a three day waiting period to purchase weapons? Is someone really anti-gun if they think gun sellers should be held legally accountable if they advertise a firearm as fingerprint proof to attract criminals?

Tell me, is everyone who advocates gun regulation anti-gun?

The Gun Industry? Most of the guns I own are foreign. Most of the illegal guns in America are foreign, the only "gun/rifle" in America that is making money are shotguns and hunting rifles.

That includes manufactures (military, civilian, and combos') dealers, distributors etc. The latest tactic is to sue them out of existance.

I've read the actual bill (posted above). Apparently you haven't as you specifically mention that lawsuits prevented are specifically mentioned in section 5 "qualified civil liability actions"

While I can't pretend to know all the suits brought forward, it appears to me, though possibly mistakenly, that he has quoted from the movie "Runaway Jury". The movie, while excellently made and well acted, is a powerful propoganda versus the firearms industry and includes all of the specific instances Ogiek mentioned in his post.

What I think he fails to realize is that many of the issues he discribes are blatant criminal acts (Failure to follow federal background check laws) or patent neglect (accidental discharges). One of them is a blatant reversal. The idea that a firearm manufacturer floods markets in "high-crime areas" could simply be a misconstrued (or patently misrepresented) cause-effect reversal (crime is high in an area, so more citizens choose to purchase firearms for protection from said criminals). That is, if any of them actually happened. I feel I am relatively well educated in the industry and I have never heard of a weapon that was advertised as "fingerprint proof". This said, I could be very wrong, and the movie borrowed from actual litigation. If so, I apologize in advance, but will require a bit of research to prove such.

There is a larger philosophical issue here than a bad bill, supportered by the gun industry, and defeated by the Senate. Is every attempt to regulate the gun industry to be seen as a full scale assault on the 2nd Amendment? Cannot reasonable people say yes, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the rights of citizens to own guns, but society has a right to regulate the sale and manufacture of those weapons to insure that guns are safe and stay out of the hands of those who would use them to commit crimes?

How does is the 2nd Amendment damaged by ending the sale of guns at gun shows? Do we really infringe on people's right's by requiring a three day waiting period to purchase weapons? Is someone really anti-gun if they think gun sellers should be held legally accountable if they advertise a firearm as fingerprint proof to attract criminals?

Tell me, is anyone who advocates gun regulation anti-gun?

(dodge, dodge)

Society has already regulated the safety of guns. All the laws are doing is preventing Law Abiding Citizens from owning/purchasing them.

Yes, yes, no.

Nice false dichotomy.

While I can't pretend to know all the suits brought forward, it appears to me, though possibly mistakenly, that he has quoted from the movie "Runaway Jury". The movie, while excellently made and well acted, is a powerful propoganda versus the firearms industry and includes all of the specific instances Ogiek mentioned in his post.

What I think he fails to realize is that many of the issues he discribes are blatant criminal acts (Failure to follow federal background check laws) or patent neglect (accidental discharges). One of them is a blatant reversal. The idea that a firearm manufacturer floods markets in "high-crime areas" could simply be a misconstrued (or patently misrepresented) cause-effect reversal (crime is high in an area, so more citizens choose to purchase firearms for protection from said criminals). That is, if any of them actually happened. I feel I am relatively well educated in the industry and I have never heard of a weapon that was advertised as "fingerprint proof". This said, I could be very wrong, and the movie borrowed from actual litigation. If so, I apologize in advance, but will require a bit of research to prove such.

I knew it sounded familiar. We all know Hollywood is always truthful in movies. No wonder he wouldn't give me a reference to his post and is changing the subject. Thank you for the info.

Reasonable people can reasonably debate this issue. You have obviously characterized yourself as unreasonable. For you, and others like you, the Constitution begins and ends with the 2nd Amendment and society has no higher function than to guarantee its citizens the right to unfettered access to guns.

Since you see anyone who is concerned about guns in American society as an advocate for a total ban on guns there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing the discussion.

P.S. I am unfamiliar with the movie you are referring to.

Reasonable people can reasonably debate this issue. You have obviously characterized yourself as unreasonable. For you, and others like you, the Constitution begins and ends with the 2nd Amendment and society has no higher function than to guarantee its citizens the right to unfetter access to guns.

Since you see anyone who is concerned about guns in American society as an advocate for a total ban on guns there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing the discussion.

Let's see. You flame, contradict yourself, change the subject, and refuse to post links to your accusations.

Have a nice day.:)

P.S. then provide a source for your information.

Frankly i hunt. but that doen't mean that i need to have an assualt weapon or something, animals arent in tanks!!

Frankly i hunt. but that doen't mean that i need to have an assualt weapon or something, animals arent in tanks!!

Good. I personally don't hunt, I'm a collector. What do you hunt w/?

i hunt birds such as dove and geese, i hunt for pleasure and this is something that non-hunters often don't realize, they set limits based on food supply so that we basically kill of ones that will die anyway

Tell me, is everyone who advocates gun regulation anti-gun?

No, it is perfectly reasonable to regulate firearms. Unfortunately, history tells us that it is a cycle that once started, usually ends disasterously. Add to that the level of regulation and we find that your question is exactly the tool an anti-gun lobbyist would use.

The question isn't whether there should be regulation (anything with which there is a criminal use is subject), but how far the regulation should be allowed to go.

I would allow for some things as absolutes (many of these have been in place for decades):
Felons, having lost many of the privelidges of a citizen should not be allowed ownership of a firearm. You do the crime, you pay the price.
Using a firearm in a criminal fashion increases the penalty for the act
Age restrictions set to 18 and 21 for long guns and sidearms respectively

I would also allow for some increases to regulation:
Require training, but do not make it so ridiculous it is unatainable or so expensive it is beyond reach
Require registration, but registrations should be used by law enforcement as a means to track criminals, not to monitor gun owners
Require licensure, but make those licenses available to the general public
Require safety devices, but not to the point of making the item useless
Require background checks to enforce the aforementioned Felon from acquiring a firearm, but relegate such checks to criminal history

I would never allow for:
Blanket restriction or banning of any small arm
Blanket restriction or banning of any type of ammunition
Restriction of weapon use to any non-criminal end (hunting, target shooting, collecting, self-defense)
Junk litigation and frivilous lawsuits
Seizure of firearms from legitimate gun owners

I am about as pro-gun as they get, and I would allow for regulation, but I damn well would call someone who wants to take away freedom rather than enforce reason anti-gun

i hunt birds such as dove and geese, i hunt for pleasure and this is something that non-hunters often don't realize, they set limits based on food supply so that we basically kill of ones that will die anyway

I know, while I don't hunt, I support it. I meant "What type of firearm do you hunt with?

i agree on most points, the only one that i disagree with is the age bit, i'm 13 and hunt responsibly (shotgun) , i also believe that hunters safety should be mandatory for all gun owners.

sorry misunderstood

it's a 20 gage Remington

No, it is perfectly reasonable to regulate firearms. Unfortunately, history tells us that it is a cycle that once started, usually ends disasterously. Add to that the level of regulation and we find that your question is exactly the tool an anti-gun lobbyist would use.

The question isn't whether there should be regulation (anything with which there is a criminal use is subject), but how far the regulation should be allowed to go.

I would allow for some things as absolutes (many of these have been in place for decades):
Felons, having lost many of the privelidges of a citizen should not be allowed ownership of a firearm. You do the crime, you pay the price.
Using a firearm in a criminal fashion increases the penalty for the act
Age restrictions set to 18 and 21
for long guns and sidearms respectively

I would also allow for some increases to regulation:
Require training, but do not make it so ridiculous it is unatainable or so expensive it is beyond reach
Require registration, but registrations should be used by law enforcement as a means to track criminals, not to monitor gun owners
Require licensure, but make those licenses available to the general public
Require safety devices, but not to the point of making the item useless
Require background checks to enforce the aforementioned Felon from acquiring a firearm, but relegate such checks to criminal history

I would never allow for:
Blanket restriction or banning of any small arm
Blanket restriction or banning of any type of ammunition
Restriction of weapon use to any non-criminal end (hunting, target shooting, collecting, self-defense)
Junk litigation and frivilous lawsuits
Seizure of firearms from legitimate gun owners

I am about as pro-gun as they get, and I would allow for regulation, but I damn well would call someone who wants to take away freedom rather than enforce reason anti-gun

My god a reasonable individual. How refreshing. (oh wait I'm unreasonable). The only problem I see w/ your post is the subjectiveness of the increases in regulations. W/o strong support, the use of the "save the children" arguement leads to the implementation of inane regulations.

What you all are so happily forgetting about the right of the animals who are being hunted. They should not have to suffer and die for our gun-happy society to seem "macho". Wouldn't everyone (including the animals you find "pleasure" killing) be a lot happier once the senseless murder of animals stops in all forms?

I think 7.62x39mm ammunition is useful for medium-game hunting.

What kind o' trophy do ye have after blasting them to bits with an automatic? Little bits o' bloody fur? Looks nice on yer wall I'll warrant.

it's a 20 gage RemingtonNot bad.

Since you're young, you're probably not familiar with all of the arguements posted.

An "assault rifle" is a military grade weapon that can fire in the fully-automatic mode.

An "assault weapon" is any rifle/weapon that RESEMBLES a military weapon but fires in the semi-auto mode.

The Clinton assault weapon ban only targeted semi-auto weapons.

The new bill (s 1431) wants to increase this definition to ANY rifle or shotgun that can fire semi-auto along with many auto-pistols. John Kerry supports this measure and it is what started this thread.

I'm a big supporter of safety. I'm iffy on the mandatory classes but a non-invasive/restricive measure I would be support.

Feel free to ask any questions. I'll do my best to answer them.

dude we eat them if you don't like eating animals become a vegitarian you loser with no understanding of hunting!!!!!!!!

What you all are so happily forgetting about the right of the animals who are being hunted. They should not have to suffer and die for our gun-happy society to seem "macho". Wouldn't everyone (including the animals you find "pleasure" killing) be a lot happier once the senseless murder of animals stops in all forms?

So you don't mind the 60,000 deer killed last year on highways due to overpopulation? Or the starving of wildlife after exausting their food supply?

thank you, mine is a pump, but i have no problem with semi-auto hunting guns, i havent heard anything about changing the ban, just extending it.

What you all are so happily forgetting about the right of the animals who are being hunted. They should not have to suffer and die for our gun-happy society to seem "macho". Wouldn't everyone (including the animals you find "pleasure" killing) be a lot happier once the senseless murder of animals stops in all forms?

Animals kill each other all the time, many times to prove how "macho" they are (ever watch a male lion at work, or the clash between butting rams). I would like to bring to your attention that not everyone lives five feet from a grocery store. The vast majority of people who hunt follow the rules and take their prey home to be eaten or sold.

Alaso, our gun-happy society is but one society in the entire world, and every society has hunters. They may use some other method of retrieval, be it spears, bows, or even just running them down and breaking their neck with their bare hands, but they all have hunters.

What kind o' trophy do ye have after blasting them to bits with an automatic? Little bits o' bloody fur? Looks nice on yer wall I'll warrant.

Not all 7.62 rifles are fully automatic. Mine is a semi-aute. One shot.

You do know the difference, yes?

i hate people who assume that because we kill them that they would live happy peacful lives in an enchanted meadow, thats why they issue diffrent amounts of tags each year

note to all anti-hunters, animals will die in about the same numbers anyway! we just put them to use

but that doen't mean that i need to have an assualt weapon or something, animals arent in tanks!!Assault weapons are almost useless against tanks (you could destroy sights, but not much else).
They should not have to suffer and die for our gun-happy society to seem "macho".Do animals that live in the wild and then die to a hunter overall suffer less than those that are raised to be eaten?
What kind o' trophy do ye have after blasting them to bits with an automatic?7.62x39mm ammunition doesn't have to be fired on full automatic, and neither does an AK-47.

My god a reasonable individual. How refreshing. (oh wait I'm unreasonable). The only problem I see w/ your post is the subjectiveness of the increases in regulations. W/o strong support, the use of the "save the children" arguement leads to the implementation of inane regulations.

Agreed in full, hence the disclaimer at the beginning of the post. Who decides what is reasonable? Its difficult, and is the reason I so strongly oppose most restrictions. I just don't trust the current legislative body to make that decision for me.

And I apologize Bob, I seem to have failed to include my normal parental supervision clause. I, too, have been sporting with firearms since I was very very young. But the purchase, care, and training responsibilities should be that of a supervising adult.

thank you, mine is a pump, but i have no problem with semi-auto hunting guns, i havent heard anything about changing the ban, just extending it.

Of course not, most media sources won't even talk about it except with things like "the NRA wants to provide terrorists with machine guns".

There is an addition to the new ban that includes "anything that can be characterized as a grip". Take the grip off of yours and see how well it works.

Most of the guns characterized by the ban were originally categorized as "sporters" due to them being semi-auto. To ban them, the term "assault weapons" was created to demonize the issue.

dude we eat them if you don't like eating animals become a vegitarian you loser with no understanding of hunting!!!!!!!!

I am a vegetarian. How am I loser for not understanding hunting when you are the one who has no understanding of selflessness.

nianiko it's not like i was seriously out for realism

animals eat other animals, it's not like it is unnatural for people to do so, i respect vegetarians, but i fail to see why i should if they believe i'm selfish for not agreeing!

it's not like i was seriously out for realismAh. That seemed like something a pro-ban person might say seriously.

k srry

dude we eat them if you don't like eating animals become a vegitarian you loser with no understanding of hunting!!!!!!!!

I am a vegetarian. How am I loser for not understanding hunting when you are the one who has no understanding of selflessness.

I don't hunt yet I understand hunting. I've had to put down animals that were severely injured by other animals. I later ate them. Would you have let them suffer?

Have you ever seen a starved animal in the wild? Not a pretty picture. Mankind is a fact. A balance needs to be maintained w/ nature and that includes hunting. So called environmentalists in the midwest pushed for anti-hunting measures for years. The populations have now gotten so extreme that the populations far outstripped their food source. Hunters are being ENCOURAGED to hunt does to reduce the populations.

I am a vegetarian. How am I loser for not understanding hunting when you are the one who has no understanding of selflessness.

Not understanding something does not inherently make it unreasonable or evil. I don't understand vegitarianism, but I would never call for a regulation versus vegitarians. If you are willing to show compassion toward the animal, then you are obviously capable of tolerance, so please, show tolerance toward those things which you don't understand. Hunting, much like anything else, is regulated carefully in the US and Canada. That means that there are people out there that DO understand hunting, and are careful to not allow it to be distructive. Those who don't follow those rules are as guilty of a criminal act as someone who breaks into a house. While the severity may be different, the fact is it is still a crime.

Not understanding something does not inherently make it unreasonable or evil. I don't understand vegitarianism, but I would never call for a regulation versus vegitarians. If you are willing to show compassion toward the animal, then you are obviously capable of tolerance, so please, show tolerance toward those things which you don't understand. Hunting, much like anything else, is regulated carefully in the US and Canada. That means that there are people out there that DO understand hunting, and are careful to not allow it to be distructive. Those who don't follow those rules are as guilty of a criminal act as someone who breaks into a house. While the severity may be different, the fact is it is still a crime.

i agree 100%

k srry

No reason to be sorry. This discussion (here and other threads) gets pretty heated. I made a sarcastic post a few pages back and some took me seriously.

No, it is perfectly reasonable to regulate firearms. Unfortunately, history tells us that it is a cycle that once started, usually ends disasterously. Add to that the level of regulation and we find that your question is exactly the tool an anti-gun lobbyist would use.

The question isn't whether there should be regulation (anything with which there is a criminal use is subject), but how far the regulation should be allowed to go.

I would allow for some things as absolutes (many of these have been in place for decades):
Felons, having lost many of the privelidges of a citizen should not be allowed ownership of a firearm. You do the crime, you pay the price.
Using a firearm in a criminal fashion increases the penalty for the act
Age restrictions set to 18 and 21 for long guns and sidearms respectively

I would also allow for some increases to regulation:
Require training, but do not make it so ridiculous it is unatainable or so expensive it is beyond reach
Require registration, but registrations should be used by law enforcement as a means to track criminals, not to monitor gun owners
Require licensure, but make those licenses available to the general public
Require safety devices, but not to the point of making the item useless
Require background checks to enforce the aforementioned Felon from acquiring a firearm, but relegate such checks to criminal history

I would never allow for:
Blanket restriction or banning of any small arm
Blanket restriction or banning of any type of ammunition
Restriction of weapon use to any non-criminal end (hunting, target shooting, collecting, self-defense)
Junk litigation and frivilous lawsuits
Seizure of firearms from legitimate gun owners

I am about as pro-gun as they get, and I would allow for regulation, but I damn well would call someone who wants to take away freedom rather than enforce reason anti-gun

The one thing Kecibukia and I agree upon is that DeanLoche makes a reasonable argument. It is perfectly fine for someone to take an unyeilding, absolutist position on guns, abortion, or any other hot-button issue. However, people who take such positions often mistake their advocacy of their position for real debate.

The one thing Kecibukia and I agree upon is that DeanLoche makes a reasonable argument. It is perfectly fine for someone to take an unyeilding, absolutist position on guns, abortion, or any other hot-button issue. However, people who take such positions often mistake their advocacy of their position for real debate.

Oh make no mistake, I am adamant on my stance. But I lead an examined life and do not make decisions lightly. I love freedom, and I will fight and die to protect it. But I don't go forth blindly. That is a lesson you too need to teach yourself. If you wish to endorse a candidate, do so with decorum and intelligence, not sensationalism and, as you put it, hot-button issues.

I will never yield my position on this issue. I have heard the debates and I have looked within and without to find the reasons for my stance. If you are going to hold a position on this issue, you too should take the time to ask yourself why. Take the time to research your answers. Make certain that your conceptions are not actually misconceptions.

Lastly, for the sake of all thing happy, never take any one person's word. Make the discoveries yourself and you will find that there is much in this world that is 'popular misconception'

What kind o' trophy do ye have after blasting them to bits with an automatic? Little bits o' bloody fur? Looks nice on yer wall I'll warrant.

Try hitting a grizzly with a .22 - or a 12-bore Magnum even. I'll sit and watch you ping a bullet off the thing's skull like a BB round.. from a safe distance..

Try hitting a grizzly with a .22 - or a 12-bore Magnum even. I'll sit and watch you ping a bullet off the thing's skull like a BB round.. from a safe distance..You Sir, would NOT make a good Infantryman! There are just a few things in life that should never be done. One of which you have pointed out, never shoot a bear in the head, either the neck, or the chest cavatity. Like a dismount with an Anti-Tank launcher, you don't shoot a tank head on, you wait to get either a flank or rear shot. Then again some folks get a thrill out of life by grabbing the bull by the horns.

You Sir, would NOT make a good Infantryman!


Marksman. And the range officers I have fired with would probably disagree.

Then again, I wouldn't plan on firing a gun at any animals capable of speech and of understanding what they say (in case some smartarse mentions parrots).


There are just a few things in life that should never be done. One of which you have pointed out, never shoot a bear in the head, either the neck, or the chest cavatity.


Well, yes. The neck is softer than the head. However if your rifle is of sufficiently high velocity and the round is dense enough, it will still blow a bear's brains out, and be a "cleaner" kill to boot.

Just not a .22.


Like a dismount with an Anti-Tank launcher, you don't shoot a tank head on, you wait to get either a flank or rear shot. Then again some folks get a thrill out of life by grabbing the bull by the horns.

/me smiles dangerously.

PS: anyone thinking about it: really, don't try and shoot bears with .22 rifles. Even in the chest. You'll probably just get a very angry bear - or if you're extremely lucky, a bear that dies slowly enough to give you a good mauling first.

You Sir, would NOT make a good Infantryman! There are just a few things in life that should never be done. One of which you have pointed out, never shoot a bear in the head, either the neck, or the chest cavatity. Like a dismount with an Anti-Tank launcher, you don't shoot a tank head on, you wait to get either a flank or rear shot. Then again some folks get a thrill out of life by grabbing the bull by the horns.

You said that and I got this image of someone shooting a bear in the ass w/ a .22 .