iamtrip Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Why was the ban on certain assault weapons not renewed in the USA. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the $25 million funds given to Bush from the weapons industry
Jubatus Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Quote Originally posted by iamtrip Why was the ban on certain assault weapons not renewed in the USA. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the $25 million funds given to Bush from the weapons industry Indeed not; it was the $25 million and the note attached which wrote: What we can do to Kennedy we sure can do to you, too.
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I have nothing againts hunting weapons being legal. But assault weapons?! I'm sure you hunt with your Ak-47 and your magnum(ok not an assault rifle but you get it).
Kain Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Apparently, fully automatic weapons are still banned though. Which begs the question: WTF is the difference between assault weapons and fully automatics?
Mike Windu Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 "The ban doesn't need to be reinstated because only good citizens will use them." ~ random person interviewed for a news channel. "2 days later...." ~ my response. Ban is good. But it won't stop criminals.. "Oh, damn.. that gun is banned, I guess I'll just have to use the pistol today."
wassup Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 The ban was not re-instated because it would have meant Congress would have to go up against the National Rifle Association (who obviously was against the ban), a powerful organization that (unfortunately) has a lot of influence in our political system, and has only grown within the past 4 years.
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Quote Originally posted by Kain Apparently, fully automatic weapons are still banned though. Which begs the question: WTF is the difference between assault weapons and fully automatics? Aren't the assault rifles fully automatic? Well the modern ones that is. NRA=Bunch of paranoiacs
CapNColostomy Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 I don't really care why it was lifted. But I'm glad it was. Guns are fun, and they aren't the only things that can be purchased now that this ban has been lifted. High capacity magazines were also in the ban. Those things have been pretty expensive since that ban came along. And besides, the guns never went away with the ban in the first place. All this means is that it won't cost a fortune now.
El Sitherino Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 thus allowing more people to have them. :\ Oh well, everyones doomed, nothing new.
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 It's just easier for people to smuggle guns into Canada now. I'm not happy. We should do like Chris Rock says. Make the guns cheap but the bullets costly. 5000$ a bullet That was so great.
ET Warrior Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 I think it's ridiculous that the ban was not reinstated. WHY would you ever need an assault rifle? What possible purpose could it ever serve that a normal gun would not? Bah.
El Sitherino Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Quote Originally posted by ET Warrior WHY would you ever need an assault rifle? What possible purpose could it ever serve that a normal gun would not? *stolen from the simspons* "Assault weapons have gotten a lot of bad press lately, but they're manufactured for a reason: to take out today's modern super animals, such as the flying squirrel, and the electric eel"
Ray Jones Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 guns protect your home from hurricanes! and the money you spend for guns secures automatically a valuable education for your child! every child that know how to handle a gun, will save a life! and last but not least: guns will cure cancer and aids.
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Guns DO cure cancer and aids. They end the disease by ending the host.
Breton Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Fun fact: Guns kept in home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than to kill in self-defense.
El Sitherino Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Quote Originally posted by Breton Fun fact: Guns kept in home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than to kill in self-defense. wouldn't an assault rifle like... triple that number? cuz you know, more bullets per second... *shrugs* Assault weapons, wipe out your entire family in a second.
Ray Jones Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Quote Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Guns DO cure cancer and aids. They end the disease by ending the host. oh, then jumping before a train at full speed is a cure for cancer, too? also if you got a man with aids and cancer and he dies because of the cancer, does that mean cancer is a cure for aids? fascinating.
Doomie Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Why don't they just ban weapons. We have it here in europe, and i believe we also have a lot less trouble, i believe. I heard your 'right to bear arms' comees from the age that it was necissary to protect yourself from hungry bears and bloodthirsty Indians, er i mean Native americans. Totally not needed anymore But think of it. ban weapons all together, around the world, and people couldn't hurt eachother anymore. well, at least not very badly over great range... About that cure for cancer thing, that sounds interesting to start another debate over. But i'm not gonna do it.
El Sitherino Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Quote Originally posted by Doomie bloodthirsty Indians blood thirsty my ass. Quote Originally posted by Doomie But think of it. ban weapons all together, around the world, and people couldn't hurt eachother anymore. well, at least not very badly over great range... uhmm... bows and arrows anyone? Quote Originally posted by Doomie About that cure for cancer thing, that sounds interesting to start another debate over. jokes never really were your strongsuit were they.
Doomie Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Alright, that 'bloodthirsty' part was the reason. people thought inians were bloodthirsty. But they are just normal people, so they didn't need to shoot them, i think. I don't know that much about American history, so excuse me if i'm wrong... And who would use bows and arrows these days? and besieds, a bow can't be hidden uner your jacket, neither can the arrows. peopel will immediatly recognise a gangster and mass on him. And you're right about the joke part. But i really found it interesting!
iamtrip Posted September 17, 2004 Author Posted September 17, 2004 Banning guns doesn't stop gun crime. It just means its a lot less likely that random idiots purchase a gun and masacre their boss and co-workers after being told they got fired (no pun). It makes it easier for a random martyr/US-hired rent-A-Terrorist to buy a gun and slaughter a bunch of people in the street? Oh and it means Mr Bush can get some extra $ to get re-elected. Don't you just love American democracy
Doomie Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 True. I was actually implying a total stop in weapons production around the world. After a while, all you could do with gun sis throw them at your enemy since ammo is no longer being made. Unfortunatly, as long as people don't see that war is stupid, we will need weapons. And bombs are easily homemade, so it won't stop suicide terrorrists and the like. Actually, untill humanity doesn't need weapons anymore, we aren't ready to stop making them...
El Sitherino Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 Quote Originally posted by Doomie who would use bows and arrows these days? <_<;;
toms Posted September 17, 2004 Posted September 17, 2004 i was going to post that chris rock comment!!! *sulk* (about the only clever thing he ever said). I sometime despair about the US deomcratic system... it was such a lot of work to get that bill passed (limited as it was) and now they just let it lapse... sigh. Why can't they just put a gigantic tax on weapons/ammo production or import?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.