Kerry Stop the NRA. Com

[dilloduck]

I simply find it appalling that this president, all the while attacking John Kerry for being weak on terrorism, condones his attorney general ordering the justice department not to check into whether suspected terrorists are buying guns, and then sits back while the assualt weapons ban, a law that helps to keep large weapons out of the hands of terrorists, is allowed to expire.

The hypocrisy is blinding.

acludem

What isn't blinding is your hypocritcal claim that your organizations' goal is to protect the civil liberties of the American people as granted by the constitution!

 

[Avatar4321]

What isn't blinding is your hypocritcal claim that your organizations' goal is to protect the civil liberties of the American people as granted by the constitution!

Neither him nor the ACLU give a damn about civil liberties. Just their socialist agendas.

 

[acludem]

Wrong again, it is legal (thanks to the so-called Patriot Act) for the justice department to know everything about you, from the books you read to the websites you visit, etc. except for one thing, only one thing according to John Ashcroft is exempt - whether you own a firearm is none of the justice department's business. That's right, we'll know if you've been buying Michael Moore books, but if you buy a now legal AK-47 or Uzi, that's your own business.

Sounds like a real good way to stop terrorism. Make large weapons legal and easy to access, but make sure they don't read any books we might not like.

As for the ACLU, we have been fighting the Patriot Act since it was passed.

acludem

 

[dilloduck]

Wrong again, it is legal (thanks to the so-called Patriot Act) for the justice department to know everything about you, from the books you read to the websites you visit, etc. except for one thing, only one thing according to John Ashcroft is exempt - whether you own a firearm is none of the justice department's business. That's right, we'll know if you've been buying Michael Moore books, but if you buy a now legal AK-47 or Uzi, that's your own business.

Sounds like a real good way to stop terrorism. Make large weapons legal and easy to access, but make sure they don't read any books we might not like.

As for the ACLU, we have been fighting the Patriot Act since it was passed.

acludem

Of course! --You want to make a terrorist attack as easy as possible !!!!

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Wrong again, it is legal (thanks to the so-called Patriot Act) for the justice department to know everything about you, from the books you read to the websites you visit, etc. except for one thing, only one thing according to John Ashcroft is exempt - whether you own a firearm is none of the justice department's business. That's right, we'll know if you've been buying Michael Moore books, but if you buy a now legal AK-47 or Uzi, that's your own business.

Sounds like a real good way to stop terrorism. Make large weapons legal and easy to access, but make sure they don't read any books we might not like.

As for the ACLU, we have been fighting the Patriot Act since it was passed.

acludem

Gee if I surf behind a proxie at an Internet cafe, how is the FBI going to know who I am and what I looked at?

I walk into Barnes & Noble and buy the latest issue of "Sex with Camels" and pay cash, how is the FBI going to know who I am and what I bought?

Since you guys think Bush/Ashcroft are trying to take over the country and put us all in chains, I would think that you would support an armed population. How else will we resist?

You make no sense........

 

[Merlin1047]

I think banning them means you can't buy them in gun stores, where the majority of Americans get their guns. Banning them there makes it more difficult (not impossible, of course) to procure them, and thus lowering the amount of assault weapon-related crime. Its a good first step.

Usually it is a good idea to base one's opinions on facts instead of blind prejudices. Here's an excerpt from an article posted on a web site which SUPPORTS gun control:

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,574496,00.html

Home > Gun Violence > News > News Summaries

News Summaries


Report: Assault Weapons Ban's Impact Unclear
9/7/2004


A study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) says that the federal assault-weapons ban can't be credited for a recent decline in gun-related violence, the Washington Times reported Sept. 1.

"We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence," said the report written by Christopher Koper, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun violence. Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement."


The problem with gun control is represented very well by your very own statement that banning so-called "assault" weapons is "a good first step". Personally, I have never had the need or desire to own a fully automatic weapon, nor am I a gun collector. But I do not want to be the recipient of misguided "protection" from the left. Leftists respond inappropriately to many problems, but none more so than crimes committed with guns. Leftists seem to think that making guns illegal would make us all safer. They are wrong.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/research.html

Greenwood Report from England
Findings of Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood of the West Yorkshire constabulary, England, who in his book "Firearms Control," revealed that as a consequence of harshly restrictive firearm laws affecting the British public, criminal violence had increased 196% from 1981 to 1992. Similar findings occur in the U.S., where cities with more gun control to the point of banning firearms, are stricken with phenomenal crime rates, which throw the entire country into disrepute.

"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort... Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this class of weapon in crime than ever before."

-- C. Greenwood, Firearms Control, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972, p.243

Besides an increase in gun crime following enactment of confiscatory laws in the UK, the rate of violent crime involving home burglaries while the owners are on the premises has increased dramatically. Criminals, no longer needing to fear armed owners, break in with impunity whenever the whim strikes them.

The Australian experience with gun confiscation is detailed here:

Since Port Arthur

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported a 3 per cent increase in murder for 1997 and an 11.5 per cent decrease for 1998, giving a total two-year decrease of 8.5per cent. 15 16 This is, however, within the normal range of annual fluctuations as shown by AIC figures over 20 years,1975-95.17 Armed robbery increases were 44 per cent and 20 per cent, for a total increase of 72 per cent. The AIC reported in May 1999 that total gun deaths had indeed decreased, but this was almost entirely due to a continuation of the trend of decreasing gun suicides.18

Total suicides increased, largely due to hangings and car exhaust gas inhalation. While total murders decreased, gun murders increased slightly. The massive armed robbery increase involved relatively more knives, but fewer guns. This may not be beneficial. While knives may be less dangerous, robbers are more likely to use them and the two effects largely cancel out. 19

By contrast, the FBI and US Department of Justice found that the much-criticised USA had an 8 per cent decrease in murder rate and a 17 per cent decrease in armed robbery for 1997-9, for no increase in taxes and no confiscations at all. 20 21 This occurred in spite of a steady increase in legal gun ownership.22 In 1998, Professors john Lott and David Mustard of the University of Chicago published data showing that murder and violent crime rates decreased in those US states allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed defensive handguns.23 Mass public shootings began to decline almost immediately and almost vanished about five years after such laws were enacted.24 According to anti-gun dogma, violent crime should have increased.

Australia is also compared with Japan. Japanese gun ownership is about 2% of the Australian level, but their murder rate is about 60% of ours and their suicide rate is almost double that of Australia and the US.25 Japan also has the death penalty, but does not have trial by jury.26 Those who urge us to adopt Japanese gun laws do not mention this.

The AIC Director is now on record as stating that criminals will neither register nor surrender their guns.27 No political party has any plan for controlling criminal misuse of firearms.28

But facts rarely dissuade the anti-gun fanatics as indicated in the following excerpt from the same source as above:

NO NONSENSE IN NO. CAROLINA: The 4/6/97 Raleigh News & Observer reports the State Bureau of Investigation has reported that not one of the guns carried by the 20,082 Right to Carry permit holders has been used to commit a crime. Lisa Price, Executive Director of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence and wife of anti-gun Congressman David Price (D-N.C.), was quoted as saying, "I still think it's bad legislation, although it doesn't seem to have turned out as bad as we thought it would be." Well, she's half right! Meanwhile, North Carolina observed its first-ever Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Week as the state legislature and Governor Hunt honoured NRA's award-winning child safety program -- yet another way North Carolinians have shown common sense on the gun issue.

Why is it that leftists believe that they are allowed to choose the parts of the Constitution which apply to Americans? Leftists go into fits of rage over a simple requirement to present positive identification prior to voting in order to prevent voter fraud while blithely ignoring the rights of law abiding Americans to own and carry firearms. Puzzling indeed.

The assault weapons ban is a poorly crafted and often illogical law. It bans some weapons solely because they have a bayonet mounting stud on the barrel. Are Democrats worried that there will be a spate of drive-by bayonettings? Or could it be that their agenda is more devious and that their intent is to ban all LEGAL firearm ownership? And is this assault weapons ban nothing more than, as you put it, "a good first step" in that direction?

 

[musicman]

Liberalism hates simplicity. That's because the truth is often plain and simple. Example:

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

That's hard to explain away.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

condones his attorney general ordering the justice department not to check into whether suspected terrorists are buying guns,

Do you really think that terrorists would buy these guns "on the books"? Why would they do that? They get them on the black market so it's hard to trace.

and then sits back while the assualt weapons ban, a law that helps to keep large weapons out of the hands of terrorists, is allowed to expire.

Where's the proof that this law helped at all?

 

[nakedemperor]

Excuse me, you MEAN where the Majority of LAW ABIDING Americans get their guns. Only for those that follow the law, get it dimwit?

"GOOD FIRST STEP". Dimwit.

I'd say you could cut down on a significant portion of assault weapons related crime by preventing them to be EASILY and LEGALLY purchased by law-abiding citizens. People who commit a crime for the first time who have an assault rifle in their possesion. Children who take an assualt rifle out of their parents gun closet and murder dozens of fellow students because of their rapid rate of fire capabilities. People who steal guns from other people's homes. If you take these legally purchased guns out of circulation, you're going to reduce the amount of crime commited with them (obvious not eliminating it). Who NEEDS a TEK-9 or an AK-47!? Unless you're out hunting today's new SUPER game, like lion-sharks, or elephant-spiders.

 

[Annie]

"GOOD FIRST STEP". Dimwit.

I'd say you could cut down on a significant portion of assault weapons related crime by preventing them to be EASILY and LEGALLY purchased by law-abiding citizens. People who commit a crime for the first time who have an assault rifle in their possesion. Children who take an assualt rifle out of their parents gun closet and murder dozens of fellow students because of their rapid rate of fire capabilities. People who steal guns from other people's homes. If you take these legally purchased guns out of circulation, you're going to reduce the amount of crime commited with them (obvious not eliminating it). Who NEEDS a TEK-9 or an AK-47!? Unless you're out hunting today's new SUPER game, like lion-sharks, or elephant-spiders.

And you justify the constitutionality how? How many 'law abiding citizens' are you 'afraid' will buy them? Very few, as you point out, they won't be used for hunting. There are easier ways to protect your property than an assault weapon. Yet, there are not to be laws abridging our rights.

 

[Flying Duck]

Wrong again, it is legal (thanks to the so-called Patriot Act) for the justice department to know everything about you, from the books you read to the websites you visit....

This is a LIE - plain and simple. Please show me the specific section of The Patriot Act which supports your claim. I have debated this kind of fallacy regarding TPA elsewhere and have yet to find anyone who can back up any of these claims. You're conveniently ignoring the numerous provisiosns for judicial oversight, warrants, etc... not to mention the numerous references and reinforcements of 1st and 4th Amendment protections.

But, then again, I've actually read The Patriot Act - you obviously haven't - just some ACLU billboards and leaflets. So, BRING IT ON - let's look at The Patriot Act and see what it really says. Your shallow rhetoric will wilt quickly under the light of the truth.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Here's more interesting information about the assault weapons ban:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=258

This latest ad from Moveon PAC is about as misleading as it can be. Through words, graphics and sound effects, it invites viewers to think that the expiration of the ban on 19 semiautomatic assault weapons will allow people legally to buy fully automatic machine guns that can fire "up to 300 rounds per minute." That's false.

It has been illegal to buy a machine gun without federal clearance since 1934, and remains so.


The ad also claims that Bush "will let the assault weapon ban expire," which is misleading. In fact, Bush spoke in support of the ban during his campaign four years ago and his spokesman said as recently as May of last year that he still supported it. It was Congress that failed to consider extending the ban and didn't present Bush with a bill to sign.

I love that site. They are very objective.