A Black day for America's safety and democracy...

***dutchie*** · Sep 13th, 2004 1:43 AM

...when the NRA proves it has more power than anyone in the USA and semi-automatic weapons are again freely available, against the wish of 70% of all Americans...

George W. Bush promised he would make sure the semi-automatic banning law would be prolongued. He did not make much of an effort. The NRA lobby and pressure was too hard for him to handle.

Explain that to the parents of the dead kids from Columbine high..

One thing that still baffles me...
WHY would you WANT semi-automatics, Kalashnikovs, Uzi's?!? Not for hunting or anything...

***DontBeAfraid*** · Sep 13th, 2004 5:19 AM

For the revolution..... The US is built on revolutions..... The US is all about overthrowing evil regimes. How can we do this without military grade weapons?

***dutchie*** · Sep 13th, 2004 5:37 AM

I was being serious, DBA.

***DontBeAfraid*** · Sep 13th, 2004 5:39 AM

You think I'm not?

**MetalMilitia** · Sep 13th, 2004 5:48 AM

Bill of Rights - Article [II.]
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.

They are worried about criminals gettin them - which is understandable, but even if they stayed illegal - criminals would still get them. They have been for years, I don't think this will change anything. It's not like people are lining up around street corners to get in line and buy an uzi. (well, I might be)

Theres no reason why criminals should prevent law abiding citizens from owning whatever they want for their own personal protection.

Excessive - Yes, but According to US law (the right to bear arms) it's well within our rights to own a gun that could bring down a T-Rex on PCP.

-MM-

***dutchie*** · Sep 13th, 2004 5:48 AM

Yes DBA. I'm even quite sure about it. Look, I can understand (NOTE: I do NOT agree) that some people would want to have a handgun in their home for purposes of self defense, but I can not understand why that gun should be an Uzi. And what's more, 70% of all Americans agree semi automatic guns should remain to be banned.

I am sure the police force is not at all happy about all this extra firepower they again will have to face on the street.

Let the military carry whatever they deem necessary, but I'd say civilians are absolutely not in need of these guns.

And moreover, what country would have an organisation like the NRA dictate even its governments decisions?!? Ridiculous!

***dutchie*** · Sep 13th, 2004 5:52 AM

MM, I can NOT understand that someone like you, so opposed to war, death and destruction, can at the same time agree to a ban of these weapons being lifted.

You Americans never cease to amaze me.

**MetalMilitia** · Sep 13th, 2004 5:56 AM

War = against
Constitution = For

***dutchie*** · Sep 13th, 2004 5:56 AM

Well, can't you see the contradictions in those?!? I can...

**MetalMilitia** · Sep 13th, 2004 6:12 AM

2003 Crime Rate Steady at 30-Year Low

Even so there are strict state laws and procedures for buying and registering a gun. California, Massachusetts, New York and Hawaii - have passed their own laws curbing the use of assault weapons. Some of those are more harsh than the federal ban. Even gun shop owners say the expiration of the ban will have little effect on the types of guns sold.

The civilian version of a Colt AR-15 manufactured before 1994, could be sold last week just as easily as it can be sold this week.

The DC sniper (from 2002) used a banned gun - he got a hold of it while the ban was in effect. Remember the bank robbery in california a few years ago, where the guys had assult rifle AK's? They got them during the ban.

2/3 of those polled said they would renew the ban - I would probably also renew the ban, but I do point to the fact that our own Constitution says we can own guns. It doesnt say what kind or style - it says quite clearly WE CAN OWN THEM, and the right can't be taken away.

Period.

***dutchie*** · Sep 13th, 2004 6:16 AM

"Period"?!?

A bit of a blunt way to end a discussion, wouldn't you say, MM??

And what about the NRA being able to dictate which laws are installed and which aren't? What about GWB promising to prolongue the ban, and now not keeping it under NRA pressure?

***Defiant Noquisi*** · Sep 13th, 2004 6:41 AM

Originally Posted by dutchie

And what's more, 70% of all Americans agree semi automatic guns should remain to be banned.

Let me make a correction to that...it should be 70% of the poll. I can guarentee you that they did not poll every single American in the US for this so you are not getting the full picture.

Dutchie, those laws were originally written so that the government and military would never be strong enough to subject its people like had been happening across the water. I know you and I will never agree on this and it would be hard for you to see it from our perspective so I really cant explain it to you any other way....

This land was stolen from my ancestors and I dont need to go into details but we lost because we didnt have the firepower neccessary to eliminate the enemy. We got spanked. When this country was being developed by the founding fathers, there were certain "guarentees" citizens gained, one of them being the right to keep and bear arms. If you think people in the US that insane then why is it that Indian people havent gathered up their own militia to defeat the enemy and take the land back? Do you think us uncapable?

No, some people actually do have brain cells and use them.

I really dont give a rats ass whether it is an Uzi, my lil .380 or a single shot Derringer, we, as citizens of the US were given specific rights that have slowly eroded away over time because in one way or another the American people have become apathetic and many can no longer see the forest for the trees. Our rights have slowly been taken away because people are blind to the truth.

You go ahead and believe what you want Dutchie, but like hell am I going to let some desk jockey in Washington DC tell me what I can and cant have or use. If I want an Uzi, if Im not killing anyone or anything with that Uzi, and I have a safe place to fire that Uzi then gawdammed I should be able to. Its not up to you to decide for me what things are enjoyable to me and that I can participate in.

I have also participated in figure 8 racing, smashing up cars and getting bumped and bruised while doing it. It is far more dangerous than any shooting I have ever done. I have NEVER even gotten a scrape during a firing round. Should we also outlaw smashing up junker cars too?

I remember you questioning me about a post in which I stated that the US and the UK/Europe are very different from each other. This is one of those times. We live in different cultures. While I agree with many things regarding your country, there are other things that I dont. I wont sit here and make like your country is full of crazy fruit loops because I disagree so I do not see any reasoning behind you directed that kind of rhetoric towards us. We are different and we will always be different. It makes neither one of us better or worse than the other.

Just because you deem it unneccessary doesnt mean that I do. Call me what you want but I will take my freedom fighting AND my firearms with me to my grave.

I ask you to look into the many elements that sport shooting is comprised of as well as the many good things that sport shootists do, rather than focusing on the blood and sensationalism. In other words, get the other side of the story before making like I and other people like me(such as MM) are some kind of crazy lunatics.

Dont make like your people are all innocent lambs while trying to put the spank on American sport shooters either. Why dont you talk to the fine participants of the Royal Shooting Association of Belgium and the Royal Dutch Shooting Association and ask them why they enjoy sport shooting? Get it from your own countrymen's point of view instead of from some crazy ass broad gun nut from the US. To be as good as they are Im sure they have been shooting long hours and many years WITHOUT killing people. Maybe they can explain it to you and you can give up slamming American sport shooter enthusiasts.

***dutchie*** · Sep 13th, 2004 7:08 AM

Wow, DN - I don't think I deserved that powerbashing, to be honest...

- crazy fruit loops; can't remember calling you that... Don't I have the right to be amazed about those cultural differences?!?
- some kind of crazy lunatics; again rethoric I did not use..

Why do you get so irritated and annoyed about what my opinion is about the constitutional rights of you and your fellow Americans?!? And that middle finger icon at the bottom topped it off rather nicely too...

BTW, you leaned quite heavily on the "sports" aspect of owning a gun. Did I ever said there was anything wrong with that? Hell, I am a member of an archery club.. Why would you however need a constitutional right to bear arms, if you're just going to target practice in a sports club?? We don't.

DN, many POV's have been discussed repeatedly on these forums; planet X, Yellowstone, the existence of God, just to name a few. Now all of a sudden I have to shut the fuck up, just I bring guns up for a second - or even a third time? Where's the freedom of speech in that? The lifting of the ban of semi automatics was a news topic on Dutch television this very morning. Why shouldn't I have brought it up?

I am truly amazed by your anger. Must be a cultural thing (???)...

**Strife** · Sep 13th, 2004 2:50 PM

I'd like to say that I'm the first american to post here telling you all, that I agree with dutchie on this. I also don't plan in my life time to ever own a gun if the risk becomes necessary, but it is easier to say that now when nothing seems to be a hostile threat.

**Donsun** · Sep 13th, 2004 3:07 PM

I am a gun owner and i have a concealed weapons permit. I carry my pistol with me sometimes. Its no big deal if you abide by the rules. I had to have a full background check before they would give me my license.
Now as far as assault weapons i dont see any real use for them on the streets. We have enough guns already. They are fun to shoot though.

**Emerald_Dragon** · Sep 13th, 2004 6:32 PM

I don't completely agree with DN. But I stand to be counted with her as a gun owner. Part of our strength lies in our right to bear arms, its also our weakness, in that we can't seem to be without them.

I don't believe our culture has evolved to a level where guns are a none-issue. I agree with Dutchie, that we may be taught that we can't live without them. But well, considering how our country is de-evolving, guns may be our last bastion of defense against our own gov't going awry.

As for assault rifles and semiautos, are they really unbanned? Can I buy a FAL now? Guns are only as dangerous as the person wielding them. I agree that they are a bit OTT for duck or quail hunting and should not be used for concealed carry, but why shouldn't you have one? *American brainwash showing*

***DontBeAfraid*** · Sep 13th, 2004 6:44 PM

Our right to arms was not originally meant for pistols and duckhunting.... It was meant for assault rifles and military grade weapons so that a standing army/militia could be organised quickly and cheaply in the event that we needed to defend ourselves as a nation. Not as individuals. It was meant to protect the common citizen from the tyranny of a corrupt government. It was meant to make sure there was no KING of america or anything equivalent to such a power...

We are slowly moving away from the freedom that our founders fought and died for.

TheJesterRace666 · Sep 13th, 2004 7:26 PM

ugh, guys..were not living in the 1700's....no more kings.....i mean we have an army capable of protecting us...and if in the event that were needed to fight...(which wont be any time soon unless fucking china invades us, lol) well have enough time to get the proper weapons we need to kick some ass...know what i mean? whoever said that "we have enough guns going around" is right, we do...i can protect myself and my family, or go hunting with the guns we have today. i dont need an m4a1 with a 50 round clip....unless im going to take on a shit load of people....

***Defiant Noquisi*** · Sep 13th, 2004 7:42 PM

Im sorry Dutchie, I didnt mean to post it angrily. Im distracted by moving and am rather stressed at the moment so it apparently is coming out in my post.

The intent of my post was that we have had alot of freedoms since the founding fathers drafted the Constitution that are being drained away. Keeping and bearing arms is one of them. Again, I dont give a damn what kind of firearm it is, there is absolutely no stipulation whatsoever what we can and cant have. At least until the "assault" weapons ban. The dumbasses picked things with big and quick firepower and magazines, rather than directing it where it belongs and thats with the people who abuse the privelege.

What got me "excited" about your post is it seems you think we dont "need" these firearms, and you are correct. However, it not the firearms that concern me as much as some government desk poof or you and people of the same belief telling me Im better off without them. You tell me you dont understand pro-gun Americans thinking regarding this. Thats why I suggested you talking with people in your own country and ask them why they like to shoot. Shooting is a sport no matter what type of firepower you are using.

First and foremost, I dont like anyone thinking for me. *I* will decide for *me* what is and isnt good for me and I dont care what country they come from. Secondly, what the hell is an "assault" weapon anyway? Anyone who thinks that only the firearms stipulated in that ban are "assault" worthy are fooling themselves. Ive seen more death and damage from domestic violence aka someone getting the shit beat out of them than I ever have by firearms. I am capable of killing someone with a spoon and I dont see them getting banned. Gun control nazi's are confusing sport with crime.

The kind of mentality behind that ban is dangerous to our Constitution, our freedoms and our way of life that had been written into law hundreds of years ago. It is dangerously eroding our condition as just better than turning this country into a gigantic police state.

I will NOT EVER SUPPORT the eroding of our Constitutional rights NO MATTER WHAT THAT "RIGHT" entails. EVER! I wouldnt mind having more rights but certainly not less.

Bringing up Columbine is moot. It has NOTHING to do with our Constitutional rights. It has EVERYTHING to do with tracking down how those children attained weapons in the first place and prosecuting every person that broke the law. Do NOT ask me to willingly get punished because of someone else who IS guilty when I am not.

You say you dont understand why someone would want an Uzi. Asking someone like me that would be like me asking you why you like faster, bigger motorcycles. Quite frankly there are more interesting things than Uzi's. I prefer shoulder mounted grenade launchers and mortar shells. Yes, I enjoy blowing things up for fun and I dont get to do it often enough.

Lets not forget that speed kills more people than firearms. Should we outlaw big, fast bikes? Do you see the parallels here? Go ahead and bring up that guns were designed to kill, but so is anything else even though it may not have been meant to be. Lets outlaw banana peels while we are at it. Those damn evil peels are killing people!

Whats annoying to me is people who think they know whats best for me and whats safest for this country, all while the guilty parties are gleefully sneaking around behind these same people flipping them off behind their backs and usurping the law. Go after those bastards and use the law against them, not me enjoying shooting up and blowing up some old washing machine in the middle of a secured field. I am SICK of being looked at and punished as guilty when the guilty parties are out abusing a great thing.

No anger intended and definately NOT a cultural thing. To each his own and I like mine big, powerful and fast. :P

***DarkAce*** · Sep 13th, 2004 8:20 PM

It's useless to answer to these posts because like in all our gun threads it just goes in circles with the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude.

Be contempt with that there must be an underlying problem in the psyche's of these individuals and glee cheerfully as you watch their society degenerate because they can't reflect upon their own faults and have to constantly shift blame onto others for their 'pains', dutchie.

***DontBeAfraid*** · Sep 13th, 2004 9:27 PM

The Jester missed the underlying point of my post.... Yes, we have an army to protect us from foreign enemies... We have the right to bear arms to protect us from enemies of the domestic type, and I dont mean burglers.

**humanhybrid** · Sep 13th, 2004 9:37 PM

Well I sincerely think that DM should like others be able to carry any weopons they deem nessesary why? OUR CONSTITUTION ALLOWS IT! For me I dont know. I worry sometimes that I need one and have owned a few in the past. But where Im at I am not able to have one. I say lets keep them all. Our goverment has been taken freedoms one by one. And like DM I plan to have a few surprises if allowed. good day!

***Zyztem*** · Sep 13th, 2004 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Defiant Noquisi

Secondly, what the hell is an "assault" weapon anyway? Anyone who thinks that only the firearms stipulated in that ban are "assault" worthy are fooling themselves.

Well, according to the "ban," an assault weapon has any two or more of the following items:

1) Bayonet lug

2) Pistol grip

3) Folding stock

4) Flash suppressor

Before the ban ended, you could get the exact same rifle, just minus the nifty extras. Many political supporters of the ban have stated that the ban was a sop to throw to the liberals.
On a side note, I agree with some of what they say. I believe there is too much gun violence. But you know what? Laws that get passed do nothing to defeat criminals. Does anyone actually believe that a criminal would say "Oops, they passed an assault weapons ban, I guess I can't use one to commit a crime? Gun laws limit the common person and leave criminals that much more. If you want to put a dent in the violence, use crime control, not gun control.
I myself don't immediately plan on running out and getting one, but "shall not be infringed" means exactly that.

**CELL** · Sep 14th, 2004 12:38 AM

i'm just gonna skip all that i've read. I'm niether for or against these guns becoming legal again. i AM however, pro-common sense...and i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say...it's the person BEHIND the trigger that we should be worried about...a bullet is a bullet...and i'm pretty sure the average citizen isn't walking around with protective vests on. Be it one bullet at a time, or multiple bullets in a split second...if the aim is to kill someone, then someone will be killed. So called assault weapons being legal now isn't really going to make a difference. "criminals" if they really wanted to...could get there hands on any weapon if they wanted. Thats why theyre criminals...because they BREAK LAWS. So who's REALLY in danger now? NOBODY is in anymore danger now, then they were 24 hours ago...due to the expiration of this feel good "ban"

***dutchie*** · Sep 14th, 2004 1:30 AM

It's encourageing to see that there are many different opinions here.

DN, I read your post a few times - BTW apology accepted wholeheartedly; I moved recently too, and I know how stressing that can be - and I must say that there a few things that drew my attention:

I resent being compared to some bureaucrat telling you what to do. I would never dream of doing such a thing. I just vented an opinion, that's all. And I agree that losing weapons in the USA (other than for sporting purposes) would have to be a totally voluntary process. If you collectively want to keep guns, fine, by all means, keep the goddam guns. Your country is based on democratic principles.
There is no wrong in using weapons for sporting pleasure. I told you this in my last post, and I will tell you again. But - as I gathered from others posting here - the initial purpose of civilians owning a gun, namely to be able to raise an army quickly, is really outdated. So why not make legislation that regulates guns into the realm of sportive use? So you'd be happy to be able to blast away a few old washing machines with heavy ammo or target practice in the local gun club, and at the same time guns stand a MUCH smaller chance of ending up in the wrong hands.
Gun ownership is regarded as an exponent of the American freedom (by those who are in favor of gun ownership, I might add). Is this really true? In our country there are people who own guns, and have a permit to do so. BUT, storage and transport of guns are strictly regulated (One MUST store them in a safe, and carry them in the locked back of a car to the club. There are alterations of the law under way to have the clubs store the guns in safes, so the guns don't need to be transported at all anymore). But - this aside - what does gun ownership have to do with "freedom"? Personally (don't get offended, this is just my opinion..) I would feel much more free in a country where the only guns around were in the hands of the law enforcement and the military (and criminals, of course - but that makes them punishable also, so in a way that is no advantage to them...).
The argument that you can kill with a spoon is not a real argument. You can kill with your hands too. But guns were designed to be shot. Designed to mame and kill, and a spoon was not. You can't say all guns were designed to be ued on the target practicing range, that's obvious nonsense. Knives were initially not designed to kill your neighbour, they were designed to hunt and cut meat. It's a false argument, and I could imagine it being used in NRA TV commercials.
Although there were pro and contra posts, I'm still amazed that NO ONE adressed my statements about the controlling power the NRA obviously has in the USA. This fact amazed me most: a club of gun owners and gun industrials being able to torpedo laws in a "free" democracy... So what happened to your "freedom" when it is controlled by some intrest organisation?!?