Senate OKs Assault Weapons Extention...

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Nope.. instead, you get Dubya

He's gone in 10 to 60 months on votes of the citizens. Slightly different from being subjects to a crown.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Norwegians are ignorant.

Quote

Even the Norwegian police is unarmed. If they need firearms they have to call in for permission, and someone has to drive out with the weapons (except some vehicles which has locked and sealed gun cases. )

That used to be the case in England, too. Since they banned guns, the bobbies are carrying submachineguns on patrol.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

Quote

>Private attendees can walk in and out with their own firearms. [why
>do you insist on calling them weapons?]

Cause they also had knives on display which (last time I checked) were not firearms.

But they could be using those knives to butter their bread Bill, come on, don't hate the tool man

I always carry a knife. I use it everyday even though I've never stabbed anybody with it.

never pull low......unless you are

[benny 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Private attendees can walk in and out with their own firearms. [why
>do you insist on calling them weapons?]

Cause they also had knives on display which (last time I checked) were not firearms.

But they could be using those knives to butter their bread Bill, come on, don't hate the tool man

I always carry a knife. I use it everyday even though I've never stabbed anybody with it.

Come on lighten up a bit, it was a joke, we know you're not a murderer Rick

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Private attendees can walk in and out with their own firearms. [why
>do you insist on calling them weapons?]

Cause they also had knives on display which (last time I checked) were not firearms.

But they could be using those knives to butter their bread Bill, come on, don't hate the tool man

I always carry a knife. I use it everyday even though I've never stabbed anybody with it.

I have a benchmade TSEK clipped to my belt right now. Used it to open a couple boxes a little while ago. I've never used it to stab anyone either...although I did use it to drive off a mugger.

[Kennedy 0]

Same here, I have a pretty well made import clipped to my pocket right now. Nice little folder, thumb stud openner and a neat little lock at the base of the blade. Love the one hand operation. Holds an edge pretty well too.

Oh yeah, and I've never stabbed anyon with it either. Boxes, rope, tangled lines, even a shirt once. Nope, no people.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>Private attendees can walk in and out with their own firearms. [why
>do you insist on calling them weapons?]

Cause they also had knives on display which (last time I checked) were not firearms.

So at this show nobody was buying anything? Boy, the vendors must've been pissed.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jdhill 0]

The bill was defeated 90 to 8 (2 abstentions / 5 Dems, 3 Reps voting Yea)...

This is good in that the amendments tacked on were not good, bad in that gun manufactures are still open to legal action...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[mnischalke 0]

Just in case somebody else didn't post it yet, the entire bill is dead.

Talk about political posturing... They frantically load this thing up with all sorts of amendments and then kill it 90-8. "Ooooooh, as your senator, I represented you and your interests!!!! (as well as the guy who wanted the opposite of what you want) Vote for meeee!!!!"

Fuckers

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I'd say it's fairly clear that a gun's primary purpose is to kill.

If guns are "designed to kill", they aren't doing a very good job of fulfilling their purpose. The BATF estimates there are 250 million guns in private ownership in America. And the FBI tells us there are about 7,000 firearms murders per year. When you compare those two statistics, you find out that only one out of every 35,000 guns is actually used to kill someone. Actually, even fewer than that, since some guns are used to kill more than one person. Thus, 99.997% of all guns are not used to commit murder. So for every murder that occurs, would it be your position that the other 34,999 guns which were _not_ used to commit murder, are being misused or under-utilized? And why are all these people buying guns that they never use for their "intended purpose"?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I'd say it's fairly clear that a gun's primary purpose is to kill. Now, if that's not it's primary purpose, I'd say it's poorly designed.

Just because guns were invented "to kill" hundreds of years ago, does not mean that we are forever locked-in to doing only that same thing for which they were originally designed. Since that time, firearms have evolved to become many other things; such as for many forms of sport shooting and for lawful self defense. To continue to view them as having the sole purpose of killing is incredibly incorrect. We are not forever bound to use an object for the same reason for which it was originally invented. Nor would it be correct to forever refer to it in that manner.

For example, bows and arrows were originally invented for the purpose of killing, yet today archery is a popular sport unto itself, without any aspect of killing in the practice.

Furthermore, to find true original intent, you must go back in time even further. Then you'll find that the first use of gunpowder was by the Chinese to shoot pretty fireworks into the sky, which weren't designed to kill anyone. So those who want to advocate this "original intent" theory, should then be saying that guns are designed to shoot pretty fireworks. I'm sure everyone will agree that this is a ludicrous comparison. It's also just as ludicrous as the contention that guns today are all designed to kill.

[cvfd1399 0]

Do you have the land to enjoy them? You might live in a big city with no place to shoot, which would make you thin you don't need them. If I lived in a big city with no place to shoot, I proally would only own a handgun, but living where I do I can go set up a target(washing machines are fun) in a field and go at it.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The 90-8 vote stunned gun control forces, who just a few hours earlier had regarded their own victories on the assault weapons ban and a measure requiring background checks at guns shows as largely symbolic.

Quote

Gun control advocates had assumed the assault weapons and gun show amendments would be stripped in negotiations with the House, which has killed Senate-passed gun control amendments in the past.

So...why in the hell did they add mostly symbolic amendments that they expected to be stripped out anyway? WTF????????????

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=5&u=/nm/20040302/pl_nm/congress_guns_dc

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Are you saying that Kerry is against the law?

For the record, here were Kerry's votes today:

Yea - Renewal of Clinton's Gun and Magazine Ban

Yea - "Closing the Gun Show Loophole"

Yea - Ban "armor piercing" ammo

Nay - Frivolous lawsuit immunity for gun industry

Kerry has never seen a civilian gun ban he didn't like. If elected, he will continue where Bill Clinton left off...

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

So...why in the hell did they add mostly symbolic amendments that they expected to be stripped out anyway? WTF???

Simple. They wanted to kill the original bill, but couldn't do it in a stand up vote. Almost sixty senators cosponsored the bill. They could however, load it with so much crap that no one would vote for it.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

But the way the article was worded it sounded like they were suprised that it got killed in the Senate, they thought it would pass there and go to the house for debate where their "mostly symbolic" amendments would be stripped out and the bill would pass.

Here's a question....who the hell asked our government to pass symbolic legislation? I'm just glad we have the internet these days to make it easy to see who votes how on many issues when deciding who to vote for. When I started voting I pretty much had the LOWV Q&A in the paper the day before an election as the only source to see who voted how.

[mnischalke 0]

aka poison pill amendments

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

who the hell asked our government to pass symbolic legislation?

That's just what they do so they can stay there longer. All they are there for is to mark time and make people feel comfortable that someone is doing something, when in fact, they aren't doing shit. Well, they did pass the McCain-Feingold act which stifles the First Amendment in order to retain power (god forbid the truth about some of these assfucks gets out).

I lost my taste for politicians during the term limits debates a few years back. Unfortunately, all the good folks who supported term limits (very much in keeping with the intent of the Constitution and its framers) are now out, and the career politicians and criminals stayed. I especially love when they vote themselves raises when they can't pay a bit above the poverty level to people we expect to carry rifles in defense of our country.

Disgustipating...

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[airdweller 0]

59 replies before you got into this discussion. What's up with that?
A gun thread is not a real gun thread till JohnRich enters the frey

------------------------------------------------------
"From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant,
who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

If guns are "designed to kill", they aren't doing a very good job of fulfilling their purpose.

John,
I carry a gun every day. It was designed to kill. It was designed to be a weapon, I use it as a weapon, it will always be a weapon. A small minority of firearms are designed for target shooting, collecting...whatever. The statistics will say that most guns are not used for killing. That has nothing to do with what they were designed for.

You have appionted yourself as the wholesale distributor of information and data about gun rights on a skydiving website, yet I wonder if you have even a modicum of real world experience dealing with the long-term aftermath of an incident where a weapon was used in the manner consistent with it's design, to kill another human being. Guns make shitty paperweights, mediocre investments, and are dangerous props for posturing. They're shit hot for killing folks though. I will still, however, stand up for our collective right to responsibly own them.

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I carry a gun every day.

In your job as a Wal-Mart greeter? Does company policy allow that? Gosh, I didn't know my local Wal-Mart was such a dangerous place...

Quote

A small minority of firearms are designed for target shooting, collecting...whatever.

Most guns are dual purpose, which can be used for both target shooting, and self defense. So I don't see how you can claim that target guns are the minority.

Quote

The statistics will say that most guns are not used for killing. That has nothing to do with what they were designed for.

And what they were "designed for" has no relationship to how they are actually used. It's up to the purchaser to decide how the gun will be used.

Other guns, like M1 Garands, for example, were originally built for war, but are no purchased as collectibles, and used in Garand target matches for sport. This kind of throws a monkey wrench into your "designed for" scheme...

Quote

You have appionted yourself as the wholesale distributor of information and data about gun rights on a skydiving website...

I don't know where you got that from. I haven't appointed myself as anything. I'm just a participant in the threads, just like dozens of other people. If you don't like the information I provide, you don't have to read it.

Do you have a problem with people receiving information and data for their consideration?

If you have a problem with people talking about non-skydiving topics on a skydiving web site, then take that up with the moderatores in the "Feedback" forum. They created this "Talkback" forum for that very purpose. Skydivers don't just like to talk about skydiving, but also about lots of other things.

Quote

I wonder if you have even a modicum of real world experience dealing with the long-term aftermath of an incident where a weapon was used in the manner consistent with it's design, to kill another human being.

As a matter of fact, there is a guy serving a life sentenct in a Florida prison right now, where he has been for 16 years now, for trying to use a gun against me in that manner: Clicky

Quote

Guns make shitty paperweights, mediocre investments, and are dangerous props for posturing. They're shit hot for killing folks though.

Actually, I would think they would do a great job as a paperweight, if someone wanted to employ one for that purpose.

As for investments, they often outperform the stock market, if you know what types to buy.

I don't know what you mean by "posturing". If you mean waving them around to threaten people, then that's already illegal.

And if they weren't effective at killing, then they wouldn't be much good for self defense. It's not a crime for a tool to be effective. It's just a crime to mis-use the tool for illegal purposes.

[quade 3]

John --

Back off the hostility of the first paragraph.

What somebody does for a living has nothing to do with their value as a person or in the opinions they might have on this subject.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Americans are crazy...

All of them? Only about half own guns... And even the half that chooses to own guns, aren't all crazy. In fact, very few of them are. If they were, then they would kill off the other half, and each other. So I guess there is something wrong with your blanket statement about Americans...

Quote

I live in a country where normal people don't go around buying AK-47 rifles. Some few people got handguns for target practise. Some people got weapons for hunting. Close to nobody get guns to defend themself.

So? Do you think all nations in the world should be just like yours? Or do you believe that they should be free to decide differentlyi, and come up with their own laws?

The only AK-47's that some people own, are semi-auto versions, which operate no differently than any other semi-auto rifles. Those that own full-auto AK-47's, are either criminals, or else the own them legally and are registered with the government.

Quote

I don't need a gun to defend myself.

Not everyone is as fortunate as you. Do you think that those who live in dangerous places should be defenseless to protect themselves and their families?

Quote

Even the Norwegian police is unarmed.

You seem to be making the mistake of judging everyone else, based upon your own laws and life. That's a fallacy. The rest of the world is not necessarily like you and Norway.

Quote

Sure many criminals can get hold of a weapon if they want to, but most don't.

Any criminal that wants one, can get one. Even in places like England, where handguns have been completely banned. Just look at their newspaper stories online - every day they have armed crimes occuring, and gun crime has been rising every since the ban.

Quote

You allways yell about induvidual freedom. The right to defend yourself. What about the right to live in a society where people killed by guns are a rare occurence? What kind of society do you want? One thing is sure. Less guns will mean less gun victims...

That would be nice. But it is not a function of how many people own guns. There are countries with no legal guns and few gun murders.
There are countries with no legal guns and lots of gun murders. There are countries with lots of legal guns and few gun murders. There are countries with lots of legal guns and lots of gun murders. Thus, it cannot be concluded that there is a correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. Less criminals means less gun victims. Law-abiding people who own guns do not contribute to the problem.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

John --
Back off the hostility of the first paragraph.
What somebody does for a living has nothing to do with their value as a person or in the opinions they might have on this subject.

I'm sorry, there was no hostility intended - only humor. He has that job listed in his profile, and I assumed it was a joke. So I played upon that joke in conjunction with his statement that he carries a gun on his job.

I agree that someone's profession has nothing to do with their value as a person or the credibility of their statements.

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

Most guns are dual purpose, which can be used for both target shooting, and self defense. So I don't see how you can claim that target guns are the minority.

Are you a lobbyist for the NRA or something? Most folks see through that kind of doublespeak. The vast majority of guns are weapons designed for killing. That's what they are good at. Some rifles, pistols, and shotguns are designed for target shooting. That's what they are good at. They are in the minority. I offer the perfect illustration, me. I own seven guns designed as weapons for killing. I own one gun designed for target shooting, a trap gun. It is anecdotal, yet illustrative. Guns, on the whole, are designed to kill, and I will stand up for our collective right to own them. If we are to be advocates for the right to own guns, we should also advocate realistic information about it, not beltway blabber. Guns are weapons designed for killing, and you should have the right to responsibly own one.

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.