MERGED: Assault Weapons

[BostonAnne]

Explain please nbc..

 

[BostonAnne]

If Kerry could be 2 people, I'm sure he would have.

I just want to go on record in saying that I think my comment here is quite silly. It was more of a childish retort to nbc turning a critisism and concern regarding Bush letting this ban expire without much effort into a negative to Kerry.

I have no idea what Kerry would have done if he wasn't campaigning right now. I'm not sure what he would have done.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I guess that we have an answer on that one.

Washington -- Sen. John Kerry charged Friday that President Bush was helping terrorists and caving in to the National Rifle Association by not pushing to extend the 10-year-old federal assault weapons ban that expires at 12:01 a.m. Monday.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/11/MNGO68N6P91.DTL

It's so good that the political discourse this year is not based on ridiculous arguments and petty attacks on character

 

[nbcrusader]

Explain please nbc..

With separation of powers, the members of congress control the legislative agenda, not the executive branch. Bush cannot call for a vote, only express an opinion. Back in the 80's, when Reagan would push for a bill, the Congress would laugh and tell him it was their job.

Kerry would do A LOT if he simply when to the floor to call for a vote or take ANY action to move the bill.

 

[Scarletwine]

He tried to have a bill introduced sponsored by him and several other to introduce a vote. He can co-sponsor without being there and then being there for the vote. Frist won't allow it to make it to the floor. In fact I e-mailed him a couple of weeks ago and got a return saying the majority of Americans want it to die. (a f lie - 80% for renewal).

ps sorry for the harshness, but he makes me sick. He's a doctor for Gods- sake. I was so mad I trashed it or I would scan it.

 

[BostonAnne]

With separation of powers, the members of congress control the legislative agenda, not the executive branch. Bush cannot call for a vote, only express an opinion. Back in the 80's, when Reagan would push for a bill, the Congress would laugh and tell him it was their job.

Kerry would do A LOT if he simply when to the floor to call for a vote or take ANY action to move the bill.

"A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough."

I think Bush should lead the Republicans to do the right thing here.

From everything I've read thus far - this is something that needs to be pushed through by Republicans. Kerry is saying publically that he wants the ban renewed - which could cost him votes.

 

[pax]

Less than 12 hours now...

 

[Klaus]

NBC:



Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

With separation of powers, the members of congress control the legislative agenda, not the executive branch. Bush cannot call for a vote, only express an opinion. Back in the 80's, when Reagan would push for a bill, the Congress would laugh and tell him it was their job.

I just see a difference between the Assault Weapons Ban and the Patriot Act, maybee the Assault Weapons Ban has a huge impact on terrorism (who needs these weapons?) but it seems like the neither the Republicans nor the Democrats really care about it

 

[BAW]

http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2004/09/12/sections/nation_world/nation_world/article_237119.php

As the clock counts down on the decade- old ban on selling and buying guns labeled by the federal government as assault weapons, phones have begun ringing off the hook at ArmaLite. Customers want to know when the newly outfitted AR-15 rifle will be ready.

"People are excited. They've been waiting for this for a long time, and we've been preparing," said Jodi DePorter, a spokeswoman for the Geneseo, Ill.-based gun maker.

ArmaLite plans to ship newly outfitted guns just hours after the ban expires to customers who were so eager to get the .308- and .223-caliber military-style semiautomatic rifles that they've pre-ordered them.

Gun manufacturers are gearing up for a wave of businessonce the ban sunsets. They're offering promotional coupons online for extras such as free flash suppressers and boxes of 15-round magazines.

 

[U2democrat]

Can someone explain to me...

...WHY someone would want/need an assault weapon? Don't give me that "to defend my family" crap, you can use a simple handgun, and, you know what? The police! Just someone please explain the want/need for those guns.

 

[Klaus]

a) amok run
b) terrorist strikes
c) killing policemen?

 

[BAW]

Its beyond me. What in the world is an average joe going to do with one? I also wonder why more than just a handful of states don't have their own bans.

It really blows me away that people are already going nuts to get them.

 

[beli]

I live in a country that has very few guns and very few shootings.

Denmark is a country that has the highest gun ownership ratio but still very few shootings.

Why do people in the USA want assault weapons? To shoot each other with. At least thats how it looks from here.

 

[EvolutionMonkey]

I too will never understand this, it just tells me that there are people out there that will justify the need or right of anything to the themselves.

 

[verte76]

It's scary that people are already itching to get their hands on these things. I don't see the need for them, I honestly don't. Are people really that anxious to start shooting?

 

[BostonAnne]

Why do people in the USA want assault weapons? To shoot each other with. At least thats how it looks from here.

That's the question of the day - why? Why do people need assault weapons? The answer to me is no GOOD reason.

And our government is stepping back and allowing this insanity. I'm so disgusted.

 

[BAW]

Are people really that anxious to start shooting?

Exactly. And what do you shoot with one besides another person?

 

[beli]

Why do people in the USA want to shoot people? Most of the rest of the fed world has little interest in killing their kin.

 

[BAW]

Why do people in the USA want to shoot people? Most of the rest of the fed world has little interest in killing their kin.

According to most people who want these weapons, they are used for "protecting life and property" or because "we have a constitutional right to bear ams"

I guess some people feel we need to be able to pump a burglar with a few hundred bullets rather than one

 

[U2democrat]

It so disgusts me the way the NRA calls the ban "bogus legislation". It frightens me too. They say "well its a hassle for the law abiding citizens." And again tell me, why would "law abiding citizens" WANT these things??? They don't need them!!!! Ugh. Our govt. needs, if i must quote Toby Keith, "a boot in their ass".

 

[beli]

I guess some people feel we need to be able to pump a burglar with a few hundred bullets rather than one

Im getting off topic here, but why do people in the USA feel the need to shoot a burglar even once?

This is actually a topic that truely mystifies me.

 

[beli]

oops sorry, I didnt mean to stop the thread. I will shut up now. Please ignore my posts

peace

 

[sharky]

Im getting off topic here, but why do people in the USA feel the need to shoot a burglar even once?

This is actually a topic that truely mystifies me.

There are two issues here. One is history. The founding fathers gave us the second amendment so we could defend ourselves if attacked by outside forces, such as the British in that case. In those days, the civilian militia won the fight against the British army so it seemed only natural.

Why do people need to shoot others? I know I'm opening a can of worms here BUT I would recommend Michael Moore's movie "Bowling for Columbine". Some of the data is fuzzy, some of it may be overly dramatic, but overall I believe his theory is correct. We live in a society that is afraid -- everything is FEAR here. In exchange, people feel they should use guns to defend themselves. Although while I don't have any statistics, i would assume most gun shots in homes are not to get intruders out but accidental shootings of those inside.

that being said, do I need to have an AK-47 to defend myself? no. and it's scary to have those back on the streets. I have no idea what this administration is thinking.

 

[beli]

I have seen Bowling For Columbine, but what I dont understand is if there is a burglar in the house why is there the need to shoot them. Why not abandon your possessions and run?

Why do people in the USA have this fear?

If its a greed related fear then many other countries have a standard of living just as high as the USA - including Australia and Denmark.

 

[sharky]

I wish I could answer that but I don't know. I would never have a gun in my house to protect me. I've lived in Brooklyn, NY for almost four years and the place has a bad reputation for crime even though I live in a safe, great neighborhood. That being said, I was a young woman living alone and I armed my security alarm every night before going to bed. and ya know what? I felt safer with that than with a gun under my bed.

 

[nbcrusader]

It would be hard to explain unless you knew someone who was interested in guns.

My college roommate's family owned numerous guns of all calibers. They simply enjoyed firing the guns, target shooting and hunting. They are law abiding citizens and by no means a danger to society.

The number and variety of guns was well beyond what they "needed", but I doubt we would want the same evaluation for our hobbies.

 

[BAW]

I have seen Bowling For Columbine, but what I dont understand is if there is a burglar in the house why is there the need to shoot them. Why not abandon your possessions and run?

Why do people in the USA have this fear?

If its a greed related fear then many other countries have a standard of living just as high as the USA - including Australia and Denmark.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that most people who keep a gun for protection don't want to shoot a burglar but hope the gun will scare one away.

And yes, unfortunately, we do live in a climate of fear in the US...we've had things like the Manson family murders and the Night Stalker serial killer pounded into our brains by the media. Statistically speaking, most of us will never experience a psychotic killer breaking into our homes while we sleep, but the fear of something like that happening is enough to convince some people they need a gun to protect themselves.

We've also been told time and time again that the criminals are better armed than the police, which is probably true.

So I don't think its really a fear due to greed as in losing possessions to a thief, its more a fear of a stranger coming into your home and not knowing his/her true intention.

 

[BAW]

I wish I could answer that but I don't know. I would never have a gun in my house to protect me. I've lived in Brooklyn, NY for almost four years and the place has a bad reputation for crime even though I live in a safe, great neighborhood. That being said, I was a young woman living alone and I armed my security alarm every night before going to bed. and ya know what? I felt safer with that than with a gun under my bed.

I would agree that an alarm would make me feel safer than a gun.

I am married to a retired cop who rated as an expert marksman on his last test at the firing range when he renewed his concealed weapon permit. That said, he refuses to keep a gun in the house and has decided not to own one at all. He knows better than anyone that a homeowner who keeps a gun in the house actually has a fairly good chance of being hurt by his own gun, either in an accident or by an intruder taking it away from him/her and using it against them.

If you have kids, you aren't supposed to keep a loaded gun laying around and if you do, its suggested that you keep a trigger lock on it...how are you supposed to either load your gun or unlock it after you've noticed someone is in your house? Or if you have it locked up in gun safe, how do you get to it?

I just hate guns period...and I don't understand a collector's fascination, especially people who desire assault weapons.

 

[pax]

NBC, I don't think your argument holds water here. I mean, I collect postcards. Do I need, let's say, the 307th postcard in my collection? No, certainly not. But could the 307th postcard spray someone--intruder or innocent person--with hundreds of bullets and give them an incredibly painful and gruesome death?

Believe me, I'm not all that into gun control--I like the Bill of Rights, even the 2nd Amendment. I see nothing wrong with a law-abiding citizen having a couple of guns for target shooting, hunting, or self-defense. I personally don't have a gun and am not interested in owning one, but I support people's rights to use, store, and own guns safely.

These assault weapons, however, have zero purpose beyond killing people. It's not like you could take your AK-47 down to the target range. There is no reason for any ordinary person to have one in his or her home when a simple pistol or rifle would suffice for the aforementioned purposes.

 

[Rono]

I am a terrorist and i can buy my kalasnikov legaly now.

I heard that 70% of the us is against ending the ban. Are you shure that you life in a democratic land, why is a loby like the NRA so powerfull