Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Originally posted by dilloduck
How about howitzers, apaches, and F-15s?----Does Mr. B think we should all be allowed to have these too?
Originally posted by tpahl
Originally posted by HGROKIT
i'll let it go, but have to say, Bush has a position. Why must you insist he does not simply because he hasn't restated it?
no need to answer, I've asked the question in several different ways. Either you don't get it or just don't want to acknowledge the position has not changed.
I admit he has a position on guns and I am assuming it has not changed. What I am questioning is two things...
1. First I am questioning what his decision not to restate his position on guns this election on his official website means.
His position has remained the same on virtually all issues except using the military for 'nation-building'. Yet he has put up his views on his official website for many other issues despite the lack of change. His lack of such a statement on guns does means something more than just that his position has not changed.
In my opinion it means he knows it is a weak position that would only cost him votes by advertising it.
2. Second I am questioning why so many 2nd amendment activists supported Bush in 2000 and why they might do so again when his views are counter to 2nd amendment activists views AND there is a candidate who fully supports the 2nd amendment (Badnarik).
May be due to the fact that some people are not single issue voters and are not worried about losing thier right to bear arms. I know you love this guy but he's got a long way to go to be a viable candidate.
Originally posted by tpahl
This is my impression of his views as well, but I can not find ANYTHING recent to confirm it. Most of the old stuff seems to confirm this as well. What I can not understand is why gun supporters support Bush. Pro Brady, pro status quo on guns seems to be a fairly anti gun position to me.
Travis
Bush follows the standard gun-owners line: he wants tougher penalties against gun-toting criminals, but no more regulations for worthy citizens with a pistol by the bed. He places the blame for Americas frequent gun massacres on negligent parents, a wave of evil and the culture of violence. As president, he would:
would bring in no new gun controls, except possibly tougher penalties for criminals using guns
opposes mandatory safety locks (but supports voluntary ones)
supports concealed-weapon laws
favors instant background checks (rather than three-day waiting periods) in shops and at gun shows
would restrict lawsuits against gun makers, which he has deterred in Texas
Source: The Economist, Issues 2000 special Sep 30, 2000
Originally posted by MrMarbles
Guns are bad. I'm not allowed to carry concealed weapons, and i'm very happy for that, so are most canadians.
It's funny, I go to the States at least once a year, and everytime we say the same thing as we cross the border, "Remember, everyone we meet here, may have a gun, so be nice" Then we shudder
Originally posted by MrMarbles
Guns are bad. I'm not allowed to carry concealed weapons, and i'm very happy for that, so are most canadians.
It's funny, I go to the States at least once a year, and everytime we say the same thing as we cross the border, "Remember, everyone we meet here, may have a gun, so be nice" Then we shudder
Canada -- A 1934 law required registration of handguns. A 1977 law (Bill C-51) required a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" for acquiring a firearm, eliminated protection of property as a reason for acquiring a handgun, and required registration of "restricted weapons," defined to include semi- automatic rifles legislatively attacked in this country under the slang and confusing misnomer, "assault weapon." The 1995 Canadian Firearms Act (C-68) prohibited compact handguns and all handguns in .32 or .25 caliber -- half of privately owned handguns. It required all gun owners to be licensed by Jan. 1, 2000, and to register all rifles and shotguns by Jan. 1, 2003. C-68 broadened the police powers of "search and seizure" and allowed the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun storage and look for unregistered guns. Canada has no American "Fifth Amendment;" C-68 requires suspected gun owners to testify against themselves. Because armed self-defense is considered inappropriate by the government, "Prohibited Weapons Orders" have prohibited private possession and use of Mace and similar, non-firearm means of protection. (For more information, see www.cfc- ccaf.gc.ca and www.nraila.org/research/20010215-InternationalGunControl-001.shtml.
From 1978 to 1988, Canada`s burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes, compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm laws.
Originally posted by ajwps
Yep you Candians are certainly luckly and safer now that you are not allowed to carry concealed weapons.
Here is a fact that you might want to know about.
http://www.nraila.org/NewSite/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=78
Here is a quiz on Canada and their guns.
February 2002
Guns and Crime in Canada: A Quiz
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/2002/02/section_09.html
Guns are bad. I'm not allowed to carry concealed weapons, and i'm very happy for that, so are most canadians.
Originally posted by ajwps
Originally posted by MrMarbles
Ya for the NRA! Because you know they aren't bias or anything. If someone really wants my TV, they can have it, i'm not going to kill anyone over it. Your 50X more likely to kill a family memeber then an intruder if you own a gun. "Sorry Billy, I thought you were after the TV".
Mcmarbles says:
McMarbles denies those nasty ole statistics from the Canadian government agency that keeps this information.
From 1978 to 1988, Canada`s burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes, compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm laws.
So McMarbes you feel safer in a gun free Canada? Huh?
Exactly! Because the bad guys can still get them. I'm glad it's still legal for me to protect myself and my family!Originally posted by MrMarbles
Gun control won't decrease crime,
Yeah, then the bad guys can't afford themOr at least Chris Rocks idea, make bullets $5000
Originally posted by MrMarbles
I don't deny anything. I live in the 'car theft' capital of Canada, we were also the 'arson', and at the time 'murder', all per capita of course.
Gun control won't decrease crime, people are always going to try and take what is not theirs. But you can't kill twenty+ people in under a minute with threats, or other types of weapons e.g. knifes, bats etc..
I don't want gun control, I want no guns at all. No guns, no gun deaths. Or at least Chris Rocks idea, make bullets $5000 that should cut down on unnessecary deaths.
Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
I think people have the right to bear arms, but the term "arms" does cover a lot. I think there should be restrictions, such as nukes and what not, but a hand gun is pretty reasonable.
Originally posted by Hannitized
Exactly! Because the bad guys can still get them. I'm glad it's still legal for me to protect myself and my family!
Yeah, then the bad guys can't afford them
People are starting to sound more and more stupid!
Um, okay, if you don't know, maybe I can explain it to you. Maybe not, it's 2 am and I'm exhausted but I'll try.Originally posted by MrMarbles
What's so stupid about it?
), believe that if the price of bullets in stores are $5000, that there's nowhere these bad guys can get their hands on some? They steal, cheat and kill. They illegally get their hands on the weapons, do you think getting the bullets would be hard?
Originally posted by ajwps
I think my right to keep and bear small tactical nuclear weapons is within my 2nd amendment rights. I really dislike the people of Tibet and feel that destroying them is not an infringement on their rights.
Originally posted by MrMarbles
Then get rid of all the guns. No guns, no bad guys with guns.
Originally posted by gop_jeff
WRONG.
All you have to do is look at England and Australia to see what the effects of banning guns is. Their violent crime rates have gone up significantly because possessing a gun is a crime. Thus, criminals have/use guns because they know it is against the law for an average Brit/Aussie to fight back with a gun, and so the criminals have the upper hand.
If everyone is armed, or there is a chance that everyone may be armed, crime decreases significantly. Case in point: Kennesaw, GA, passed a law mandating that all heads of households own a firearm. Violent crime in Kennesaw since that law was passed has decreased dramatically. And for good reason - would you rob a house or rape a woman when it's ver likely that there's someone in that house with a gun?
Gun control disarms citizens - it does not protect them.
