Obama May Re-institute Assault Weapons Ban

by TDH | February 26, 2009 at 03:27 pm

1453 views | 28 Recommendations | 31 comments

President Obama is seeking to re institute an assault weapons ban which the Bush administration allowed to expire in 2004.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to re institute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,"

The Assault Weapons Ban signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 banned 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds.

Attorney General Eric Holder posits that such a ban would, at the very least, cut down on the flow of guns from the US into an increasingly violent Mexico.

However, the National Shooting Sports Foundation has responded with a claim that the re institution of this ban will only further hurt the economy and do nothing for crime prevention.

the National Shooting Sports Foundation reminded Congress and all Americans that such a ban would cause jobs to be lost in a difficult economy, have no effect on reducing crime and would deprive millions of law-abiding sportsmen and gun owners of their Constitutional right to own the firearm of their choice.

Interestingly, the debate between gun-ban advocates and the pro-gun lobby often hinges upon mere terminology. The phrase "assault weapons" is often confused with the phrase "assault rifle." Two very different things. "Assault rifle" has a well established technical definition.

An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting either like a machine gun or one bullet at a time). Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies, having largely superseded or supplemented battle rifles (which are similar to assault rifles but are larger and more powerful) such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and SVT-40. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 rifle, and the Steyr AUG.

Whereas "assault weapon" refers to a broad range of weapons including some pistols and shotguns, weapons oft considered sporting weapons.

There are a variety of different statutory definitions of assault weapon in local, state, and federal laws in the United States that define them by a set of characteristics they possess. Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the US was first codified by the language defining semi-automatic rifles with certain characteristics in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[1] Very generally speaking, a firearm is defined by these laws as an assault weapon if it has both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a flash suppressor.

Both sides of this debate use deliberately confusing terminology to push their particular agenda.

Holder's use of the inaccurate term "assault weapons" is one that is deliberately used by gun-ban advocates to create confusion between legally sold, semi-automatic rifles and look-a-like, fully automatic military versions. While the civilian version of these rifles may resemble their military counterparts, the civilian rifle fires only one round with each pull of the trigger. Additionally, these rifles fire ammunition calibers no more powerful than traditional-looking sporting arms. Civilian access to fully automatic machine guns has been severely restricted since 1934.

Definitions and syntax aside, the debate is as important for Mexicans and Canadians as it is for Americans. Gun laws in the US will invariably impact the occurrence, severity, and type of crime in the rest of North America.

No word yet on the details of this potential ban or when it might arrive. Needless to say, when this particular bill re-emerges, we can expect a great deal of debate.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

aelusive

at 15:35 on February 26th, 2009

Too bad. King George considered muskets to be assault weapons. The only thing stopping despotic leaders is know their populous can rise up!

Srdrkr

at 19:16 on February 26th, 2009

Glad to see my WASR picture could be of use.

It saddens me to think there may be a day when my children may not be able to own "assault rifles".

mcbooney

at 20:58 on February 26th, 2009

Photo of privately owned Sporting Small Arms. One shotgun, one sportsterized WWI British .303 rifle and two .22LR rifles.
Definitely NOT "Assult Rifles" by any definition.

mcbooney has contributed a photo to this story.

djermano

at 21:03 on February 26th, 2009

All guns should be outlawed.....including the military.... Americans are slaves to the gun....and worship the Religion of Violence...bowing to the God of Gun.....

Rev.Jermano

watermelon_mail

at 01:10 on February 27th, 2009

Zeeshan Danish @ Dealer's Showroom

watermelon_mail has contributed a photo to this story.

mattbibbey

at 07:59 on February 27th, 2009

The thought of YOUR countrymen being banned from such weapons seems supurfluous. In my country ( England) all firearms except for shotguns and bolt action rifles are banned but for a few. Even to own these non-banned firearms is difficult. Since these weapons were banned, violent crime seems to be on the up and knife crime among teenagers and poor communities is certainly more than concerning! Banning the honest, law abiding man from owning a weapon of some sort will achieve nothing ( perhaps preventing that one in a million event like Colombine), REAL criminals who shoot people and eachother don't have their weapons legally any way, so what's the point? Surely tougher penalties for those who posses weapons illegally, or use them dangerously and innappropriately, would achieve far more. Also some sort of prohibition for convicted violent or unstable criminals whereby they COULD not even OWN a firearm would make far more of an impact on crime. Well, there's my thoughts. I'm glad there's no vote like this in britain!! Lol.

embryonicboy

at 09:44 on February 27th, 2009

nobody outside the armed forces or law enforement should own a assault rifle.

lefty_liberated

at 13:38 on February 27th, 2009

we already decided the ban was ok!!!! im sick of going over history over and over again because of a psychopathic opportunist who may have never been legitimately elected in the first place! keep moving forward, america!

Roy C

at 14:31 on February 27th, 2009

Esta, thanks for the objectivity of your comments. Assault rifle bans I can understand, and I can understand those who fear what it represents.

I think here it is damned if you do, and damned in another way if you don't.

If people had balance, then I wouldn't fear this law. If people had balance, I wouldn't fear people who had assault rifles using them criminally.

Sean Bannon

at 16:21 on February 27th, 2009

It's a shame that a ban should be put in place as a vast majority of people handle their firearms responsibly and the jobs are needed.

Sean Bannon has contributed a photo to this story.

EWhy (not verified)

at 17:10 on February 27th, 2009

The problem is that firearms are a technical realm that laymen (civilians and politicians alike) simply don't understand. NO ONE here has provided ANY technical or logical demerits of the "assault weapon", only emotional opinions. Not a single detractor can define "assault weapon" when confronted to define it.

This discussion has about as much meaning to the general public as a bill banning pushrod and SOHC engines in favor of DOHC and variable valve timing application. "Assault weapons" constitute 0.5%-2% of all gun-related crime as compiled by credible government studies (ie not the NRA and not Brady Campaign). Strange that everyone is ignoring the other 99%.

Clinton's administration studies admitted NO EFFECT on gun crime because you can't determine if banning 1% of a problem makes a statistical difference since the margin of error in said study is greater than 1%. Should we ban luxury cars because 1% of drunk drivers happen to drive drunk it in a luxury car? The media created the term "assault weapon" which is nothing more than an overgrown, semi-automatic .22LR rifle. The .223 cartridge used in almost all of these rifles are banned from hunting deer and larger game because it is TOO WEAK. In most states, you need a rifle of .308 caliber or larger. In reality, hunting rifles have much greater distance and more stopping power.

As far as the old ban, tell explain the logic in banning a firearm based on ergonomic or cosmetic appearances. The bill banned bayonet mounts, which are trivial at best and a feature no one used because this isn't the Revolutionary War. When was the last time someone was bayoneted? It also banned ergonomic/safety features such as an adjustable shoulder stock to suit different sized users, detachable magazines (internal mags can be very difficult to load for people with arthritis and health problems) and flash suppressors (note, not sound suppressor) which make it safe to operate without ruining your vision in overcast or low lighting.

Carolyn McCarthy, sponsor of a reoccurring assault weapons ban bill, was interviewed. When asked about a simple item listed as a feature to ban, the "barrel shroud", she avoided the question. After being cornered, said it was "a shoulder thing that goes up". This clearly shows the bill sponsor themselves have no idea what they're trying to ban

Lastly the rising violence in Mexico is due to the United States and their ever-growing War on Drugs. Several Latin American heads of state have already vocally protested and stated that our efforts are driving corruption and violence in their countries. Banning any type of firearm seems to be a convenient excuse/lie to a problem we're causing ourselves. I don't see a big change from the last administration to this one as far as freedom is concerned. Is Eric Holder honestly expecting Americans to believe that the drug cartels are buying semi-automatic firearms from the US for $1000+ each when you can get real, fully automatic stamped sheet metal AK-47s from eastern bloc countries like Yugoslavia or Romania for $20 each? This is a cartel that has technicals, tanks, land mines, hired armies, and RPGs. Why would they need civilian rifles from the US?

Lastly, apparently we're to believe that if we succeed in purging marijuana from Mexico, then no one in the United States can find marijuana ever again!

This bill already was given a "real world" try. It had 10 years and failed to do anything of substance because it was a "feel good bill" by targeting something that cosmetically looked evil.

djermano

at 18:20 on February 27th, 2009

Our Society keeps up the propaganda of the rights to own arms, and we accept that because there is no way to enforce the banning of weapons....that is the reason that guns should be and remain legal.. This is not so. Compare the use of drugs to owning a gun. What conceivable good is the use of drugs? It does not help the human body... Drugs are an escapist reaction to reality...and they promote the ability to make money. Drugs are illegal...which many people claims make them more expensive. If they were legal the price for drugs would be lower, and they claim less use.... But do honest people believe that? Certainly not.....It is a cave in to our moral beliefs... We accept that we have to legalize bad things so they become less prevalent in society. So why not do that same thing with committing murder? If murder is legal in the US.....it would reduce the number of people being killed in the US right? That is the thinking behind it.

So instead of using the gun debate to why they should not be banned.....how about the real issue behind the use and need for them. It is because of murder and killings.

If we want to stop crime and murder then we should legalize them right?

You people with any intelligence see what I am driving at. It is not about legalizing or banning .....really its the perception we are left with in dealing with the reality of supporting the good vs. the true badness of it all.

I don't picture Jesus carrying a handgun...a rifle, or an assault gun, let alone commanding huge militaries, and the brain behind making the atomic bomb. Those are all mankinds mistakes. God gives us choice to follow him, or mammon!

It would behoove me to say following the good is right.....and all the other verbating nonsense to things such as the inability to enforce the ban on guns and militaries is not something that Jesus wants enforced. Why? Because he wants us to see he does not force us to do anything for him. He gives us the ability and we freely choose...his way which is true freedom, or to rely on the forced way by suckering to the God of Gun...

Jesus is not the God of Gun, which proves he is the real light to the world...

This is what freedom is. This is the fight. It is not the fight for assuring enforcement.

So we are either for Jesus or we are not. People who favor guns and militaries are in my earnest opinion afraid....of him and freedom.

Rev. Jermano

Fire Attack

at 22:48 on February 27th, 2009

Rev. Jermano,

You Obviously haven't been faced with a situation of having a gun pointed at you. I have. Al long as we have the crimminal element, we will have violence period. Ban all the guns and you will have a new method of harm. Timothy McVeigh Killed many people in Oklahoma City in 1995 and didn't fire one shot. The Sept. 11 Terrorists Killed thousands and didn't fire one shot.

I would love to see the day when guns, or any other weapon is not needed to preserve life and well being. Why is it the states that have the strictest gun laws are the most dangerous to live in? Because the crimminals can roam around unchallenged. It's a free for all for them. I live in one of those states and we here in California live like sheep. You are not allowed to protect yourself here. The courts will prosecute you to the fullest while the crimminal rotate out of prison through that revolving door on a repeated basis. I agree with alot you have to say. But sadly in this society here, and around the world, you have to project peace through deterrence. And that includes the urban setting.

EWhy (not verified)

at 00:24 on February 28th, 2009

djermano, your examples are flawed. Smoking marijuana is a victimless crime. You harm only yourself if you sincerely believe marijuana does harm. Murdering is taking the life of another without consent. To compare someone smoking pot or even drinking coffee because it doesn't do your body any good is nannyism . In a free society, you have every right to make decisions for yourself. That includes the freedom to make good decisions AND bad decisions. If you're too lazy to use your own brain to rationalize your decisions, then you're doing human evolution or your creator a disservice. It is the second you interfere with someone else's freedoms that the law should step in.

Regulating what people can and can't do to your own personal metric is nothing more than arrogant, passive aggressive slavery. People should be allowed freedoms until they've shown they cannot handle it. Oppressing has never furthered enlightenment of the human race. The idea of everyone being equally untrustworthy and guilty until proven otherwise flies in the face of human convention.

Marijuana use in countries where it is legal is far LESS than countries like the US where it's demonized. The fact that it isn't treated as a mysterious magical shiny object takes away the mystique. Prohibition only increased the drinking rates and spawned a massive underworld criminal element along with a questionable product where countless people died or got sick because there were no standards as it was all illegal. The same exact element exists in the drug trade or the prostitution trade. Countries that have legalized and standardized these things have seen the criminal element disappear almost overnight. Try finding an illegal underground whiskey brewer in the US. You can't. Try finding an illegal underground marijuana dealer in the Netherlands. You can't.

Banning guns would be great. We can go back to the sword and brute strength. No longer will the weak have a means of defense against a superior attacker. You would deprive a woman the chance to stop a rapist? Deprive the elderly the ability to fight back? We've already had thousands of years of this. There will always be those willing to attack the weak and it's despicable to deprive these people a means of effective defense.

The UK is a great case study. Instead of addressing criminals, they address inanimate objects. They banned handguns and nearly all types of firearms after the Dunblane Massacre. Even most pellet guns are banned. The UK's own Olympic marksmen team must practice outside their country. Yet their crime has skyrocketed, gun crimes are rampant as ever and knife crime is on the rise. There are huge anti-knife advocacy groups now, believe it or not. Knife buy-back programs. Doctors have tried to ban kitchen knives. Glasglow almost passed a complete ban on glass containers in pubs and bars because of the remote possibility of bar fights involving broken bottles. This is the slippery slope in political action.

We've learned that gun bans disarm honest folks that follow the law to begin with. You prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Criminals go about business as usual--they're called criminals. "GUN FREE ZONE" in the eyes of a criminal is a guaranteed "fish in a barrel" scenario. Prison inmates were interviewed and asked their greatest fear. It wasn't cops. Overwhelmingly it was the possibility of coming across an armed citizen.

If you feel so strongly against guns, please place a "no guns in my home" sign in your front yard as a true symbol of nonviolence. Either way, the entire post didn't give one rational, reasoned argument on any remotely technical merit or aspect of the "assault weapon" or a ban regarding it. It was all emotional content which doesn't further this particular discussion.

J . A . S . I . R

at 06:34 on February 28th, 2009

J . A . S . I . R has contributed a photo to this story.

PyBrick Replicas

at 16:27 on February 28th, 2009

PyBrick Replicas has contributed a photo to this story.

PythagoreanLEGO is now PyBrick Replicas.

djermano

at 18:43 on February 28th, 2009

And the photo's prove what? How intelligent you are.....because you can blow away someone? How frightened we are in seeing them? Wow man you have the power.... a power that has throughout history never achieved peace in the world. If so......why is history nothing about one war after another? Owning guns is like committing suicide.

Rev. Jermano

djermano

at 18:31 on February 28th, 2009

Rev. Jermano,

I have been shot at by drive by shooters on motorcycles while driving my car. I saw a student gunned down right in front of me at Weber State University in Ogden Utah.

The point in my comment is that our system has no educational basis that points out guns are bad. It has no supporting efforts that proves what I am talking about is right....but we are forced to defend ourselves. We legalize guns for the reason of defending ourselves....but that same definition is also giving guns easily to the criminals....because we can't educate criminals that owning a gun is a bad thing to do.. As I embark upon why guns are bad, and give my reasons to why banning is truly unenforceable the fact is.....I am telling the truth.....And the message is do we accept the truth, and live by it, or be forced to defend ourselves? Most Americans therefore believe in defending themselves....and become slaves to the God of Gun.

Here in China guns are banned and with a billion more people than the USA, I think their decision is right and it works for them. Of course there are stories of crimes that involve the use of guns in China, but the crimes are not like the ones seen or committed in the USA. Prisoners should not be allowed out, and if repeated offense not given another chance. The deterrence system does not make real communities..So saying that it is an Urban setting is not true....it is more of a camp, or a patrolled prison yard instead. All the people carrying guns, really do not trust anyone in the neighborhood...

Thinking I carry gun, is going to stop crimes from happening? No. Drive by shooters would have no idea I have a gun...and certainly having a gun...makes people nervous to be around. One only needs to go to school such I experienced to see the reality. So kids are not allowed to bring guns to school, because the teacher has one in his desk, doesn't mean there wouldn't be a day when a mad teacher wipes out the entire classroom does it? So shouldn't all students carry a gun? That is what you advocate is it not? Everyone should pack a gun, wave it around, so others can see you have one and not to mess with you right?

But the very people who advocate the rights to have a gun.....will never allow students to have one for protection in class... I think I am right on this... So in fact you are as hypocritical in your message toward gun ownership, as I am in supporting the belief that all guns should be banned. Am I right?

Think about the nuclear bomb issue....The right to bear arms....is a complete fallacy when we think about it from a more larger level of influence. No one in their right mind would allow individuals to have a nuclear weapon defense against other people in government who we certainly do not trust. I for one would want a nuclear weapon for protection against the like of GW Bush......because of the War Crimes and Lies that came forth from that guy......and still there is no true legitimate investigation that came from 911. Do I blame other countries such as Iran for wanting a nuclear weapon? Why did the USA drop two atomic bombs on Japan targeting innocent people? Not to make the War end....obviously.....but to accomplish what? That our world will always remain in a constant debate over the right to secure our personal security? Sorry I don't trust politicians to protect me from a nuclear attack....that is unless I had my own personal Atomic bomb to thwart such threats......

I think you understand where I am coming from on the topic......and think our America needs to support the ideals to seeing Guns as not a right or a good thing...but education that it is bad....and unfortunate....We should be a society that promotes less gun ownership.....and work toward solving our problems from that basis.....instead of creating more and more enemies....by speeding up the gun making assembly lines.

Rev. Jermano

Look I did not mention marijuana...I said drugs...whether that is maryjane, LSD, cocaine, crack, meth, ecstasy, opium, heroin, or steroids...etc..they are dangersous drugs.

And you are talking in circles.....because laws do interfer with other peoples lives. Myself I do not agree with the law..that I have to support the ownership of guns. I am against gun ownership. If I work in the USA....they take tax money from me..that feeds the Military Complex... I do not support the IRS or US Government hand taking my labor dollars to support their right to kill people..So you infringe upon my rights all the time.....which forced me from my country of birth.

Regulating what people can and can't do to your own personal metric is nothing more than arrogant, passive aggressive slavery. People should be allowed freedoms until they've shown they cannot handle it. Oppressing has never furthered enlightenment of the human race. The idea of everyone being equally untrustworthy and guilty until proven otherwise flies in the face of human convention.

.....And yet you think it is ok to hogtie me, and force me to pay my taxes to a military machine I disagree with....is not an infringment upon my rights? You are dreaming. The reason we allow gun ownership in the USA....is because of the Untrustworthy and all people are Guilty human convention.....that is in place today. Certainly your own argument shoots yourself in the foot.

Marijuana use in countries where it is legal is far LESS than countries like the US where it's demonized. The fact that it isn't treated as a mysterious magical shiny object takes away the mystique. Prohibition only increased the drinking rates and spawned a massive underworld criminal element along with a questionable product where countless people died or got sick because there were no standards as it was all illegal. The same exact element exists in the drug trade or the prostitution trade. Countries that have legalized and standardized these things have seen the criminal element disappear almost overnight. Try finding an illegal underground whiskey brewer in the US. You can't. Try finding an illegal underground marijuana dealer in the Netherlands. You can't.

....By all means legalize Murder and Robbery and all crimes....and the crime waves will diminish and disappear.....you are a sad puppy I think.

Banning guns would be great. We can go back to the sword and brute strength. No longer will the weak have a means of defense against a superior attacker. You would deprive a woman the chance to stop a rapist? Deprive the elderly the ability to fight back? We've already had thousands of years of this. There will always be those willing to attack the weak and it's despicable to deprive these people a means of effective defense.

....I would not deprive a woman the chance to stop a rapists. But certainly rapists don't think they will not get caught from evidence from their body fluids. or things that naturally occur at a crime scene....They think they will not be caught? And a woman wants to kill someone.....and then go through the agony proving her victim was going to rape her? You see your arguments are surface notes, not true reality..because any woman would gun down any guy because she didn't like him...and accuse him of rape.... And the elderly is really like giving a gun to a kid isn't it? Hey give a gun to every man and woman in a Nursing Home, and see how many nurses stay there working. They would be killing themselves as well...So I don't buy your argument....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom.....

The UK is a great case study. Instead of addressing criminals, they address inanimate objects. They banned handguns and nearly all types of firearms after the Dunblane Massacre. Even most pellet guns are banned. The UK's own Olympic marksmen team must practice outside their country. Yet their crime has skyrocketed, gun crimes are rampant as ever and knife crime is on the rise. There are huge anti-knife advocacy groups now, believe it or not. Knife buy-back programs. Doctors have tried to ban kitchen knives. Glasglow almost passed a complete ban on glass containers in pubs and bars because of the remote possibility of bar fights involving broken bottles. This is the slippery slope in political action.

So what is all the fighting about? The people who believe in owning guns vs. the people who against it? So the pro-gun people attack with knives instead? UK crime is not skyrocketing....

UK crime has not skyrocketed.

We've learned that gun bans disarm honest folks that follow the law to begin with. You prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Criminals go about business as usual--they're called criminals. "GUN FREE ZONE" in the eyes of a criminal is a guaranteed "fish in a barrel" scenario. Prison inmates were interviewed and asked their greatest fear. It wasn't cops. Overwhelmingly it was the possibility of coming across an armed citizen.

No....we make it more difficult for criminals to get guns to use on innocent civilians. All people do not want guns. What is your problem? Force all people to have guns? or..Forcing people to not have guns? Since both are turely unacheivable.....the idea that not having a gun is the better option.

Thanks I advocate Nonviolence all the time. And clearly you are of the illusion that violence stops violence....It does not. It only festers more get even strategies.

Rev. Jermano

EWhy (not verified)

at 09:39 on March 2nd, 2009

Again you're all over the map and not one single statement in your ramblings have one iota to do with the "assault weapons ban". Instead of having a logical discussion about "assault weapons", you're rambling about the military-industrial complex, nuclear weapons, philosophies of non-violence vs self-defense philosophy, and so on--none which have a single thing to do with the merit or demerits of "assault weapons". It's because you have no supporting facts or education on the topic at hand, nor do most people or politicians.

However for the sake of education, I will address your points.

Here in China guns are banned and with a billion more people than the USA, I think their decision is right and it works for them.

By using China as a shining example of gun control is laughable when it's current government is dispicable with a laundry list of human rights violations, especially during the Cultural Revolution and the Communist regime. I can say this because my very own blood relatives and ancestors were displaced and chased by the regime all the way to Hong Kong so I can say that with credibility and not conjecture as a first generation American that has lived in Hong Kong and Macau myself. This is as close to me as slavery's heritage was to African-American decendants of slaves.

And you know what? Despite China's rich cultural heritage that is arguably unmatched by any culture in the world, it isn't a place I want to live in today. Maybe in 20 years when capitalism and democracy have truly nurtured their now-growing manufacturing as it did to Japan's ascention in the world in the 80's and stamps out communism, then I'm willing to give it a shot. Until then, have fun swimming in polluted rivers or hiding your children and dogs from the government. Have fun with your filtered Internet and political activists dissapearing mysteriously in the night. Having lived in both countries as well, I'd pick the US over China any day of the year.

Japan has the strictest gun control in the world and has nearly zero gun crime. Yet Switzerland's government promotes gun control and has the highest per-capita of gun ownership and has similarly near-zero gun crime. This widly contrasting duality is a fine example that the lack or presence of inanimate objects is not the cause of crime, but rather an issue of society.

.....And yet you think it is ok to hogtie me, and force me to pay my taxes to a military machine I disagree with....is not an infringment upon my rights?

I don't agree with the military going about bombing countries for political reasons either so what's your point? We're channeling billions of dollars into the War on Drugs in Central America and ruining their countries in the process. I don't agree either. The government wastes billions of dollars a year on pork that I don't support. This new stimulus bill Obama passed is about 40% pork that goes to government expansion/payraises/infrastructure isntead of helping the common American worker as it promised. I didn't support it either but I was forced to endure.

I don't support the insanity of people like the Westboro Baptist Church, but they're covered under free speech guaranteed by the Constitution. Are you to expect that you can live the entirety of your life with everything going the way YOU want it? The Second Amendment has nothing to do with wasteful military spending and bombing other countries over fleeting ideological differences between politicians.

....I would not deprive a woman the chance to stop a rapists. But certainly rapists don't think they will not get caught from evidence from their body fluids. or things that naturally occur at a crime scene....They think they will not be caught?

Ah so you offer no rebuttal to a woman having the rights of self-defense? If you don't deprive a woman the right to stop a rapist, then you're supporting the right of self-defense which indirectly supports gun rights. Which is it? You conveniently skirt answering the question directly and say we should depend on forensic evidence can be used to track the rapist afterward. Plenty of rapists kill their victims after their deed. I guess you don't care because you don't have a vagina?

You see your arguments are surface notes, not true reality..because any woman would gun down any guy because she didn't like him...and accuse him of rape....

Wow, do you really think all women are as deceiving and twisted as your own worldview of women? You seriously have some issues. Did you have a bad relationship with your mother? Are you the type that think every woman is out to get your money? Guns are legal in the US, yet in reality what you propose almost never happens. Where is your proof?

And the elderly is really like giving a gun to a kid isn't it? Hey give a gun to every man and woman in a Nursing Home, and see how many nurses stay there working.

Not every old person is some senile, drooling, wrinkled bag of skin. Your viewpoint that the elderly are worthless members of society is also sickening. There are plenty of healthy individuals over the age of 60 that live on their own, and plenty of them own firearms. How many of them are killing nurses or themselves?

As someone that claims to proport peace, non-violence, and goodwill towards mankind, you really have some despicable views of women and the elderly. A very sexist and elitist viewpoint on equal members of society.

Thanks I advocate Nonviolence all the time. And clearly you are of the illusion that violence stops violence....It does not. It only festers more get even strategies.

Do you call police if there is a crime? If so, you advocate violence-by-proxy, that you are too cowardly to stop crime yourself and you'd have a policeman apply violence to a criminal instead of getting your own hands soiled and dirty.

If you're a true advocate of nonviolence, then you are nothing more than a lamb looking for any butcher that'd have you. By allowing criminals to prey upon you is a personal choice that you have every right to make, but a selfish one ultimately. That criminal is going to finish with you and find another victim. Every victim that criminal strikes after you is going to be on your conscience because you refused to take action against someone who preys on humanity's kindness and let him continue on his merry way instead of taking action.

The idea that true nonviolence works is as silly as claiming true capitalism, true communism, or true any philosophy/religion/government/commerce system works 100%. There is no 100% fully functional system out there without it's flaws.

EWhy (not verified)

at 09:56 on March 2nd, 2009

So the pro-gun people attack with knives instead?

Yes, because law abiding people with firearms are all criminals in the US, all 100 million of the gun owners with 223 million guns. Gosh, they're all terrible folk. It's amazing there is one person left alive in the US since gun owners just go out and kill people every day for fun! Man, we have like 250 million cars too! Its amazing any of us are responsible enough to live daily!

UK crime is not skyrocketing....
UK crime has not skyrocketed.

Rejecting reality does not make it illusion. It just makes you someone that doesn't seek the truth, but would rather keep your own comfortable worldview regardless of merit. Here is a crawl of articles that just turn up on the first two pages of Google. Try providing a counterargument next time instead of rants about nuclear bombs which have nothing to do with assault weapons.

Fourfold rise in gun crime since Dunblane
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2426552.ece

U.K. Violent Crime Rises
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=agceOIMf5nfc&refer=uk

Handgun crime 'up' despite ban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

Capital gun crime rises by 50 per cent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/capital-gun-crime-rises-by-50-per-cent-524068.html

Gun crime soars by 35%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm

Violent crime figures rise by 12%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3914289.stm

Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Burglaries and knife robberies up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7844455.stm

Gun Control Isn't Crime Control.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1

Which results in:

UK is knife crime capital - Times Online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1626691.ece

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

UK knife crime figures, 2007/08
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/knifecrime

Watch the Met police's anti-knife crime ad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2008/sep/01/advertising.knifecrime

eBay bans trade in knives in UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7879701.stm

Pub glass ban faces legal fight
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5037322.stm

Final phase of Glasgow glass ban is launched
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-14339674.html

Those evil knife and glass wielders! Once we ban those evil knives and glass bottles, they'll be one step closer to utopia, but there is still the pesky issue of assault cudgels and fully automatic rocks.

djermano

at 04:14 on March 3rd, 2009

Here in China guns are banned and with a billion more people than the USA, I think their decision is right and it works for them.

...Your family was part of the kumingtang gang who were Opium drug dealers.....they were the arm that controlled China government along with support from Britain and the USA during their drug Opium days. I have seen how the USA and Britain gained their wealth by drugging an entire nation....that really was the cause to WWI and WWII. Your defense of the American Gun empire big or small is a typical response....from a coward who can't face his enemies unarmed. Jesus won the argument over guns a long time ago...as they put him the lamb to death for his convictions that violence does not stop violence. Obviously you have no such allegiance to the Lords service............

And you know what? Despite China's rich cultural heritage that is arguably unmatched by any culture in the world, it isn't a place I want to live in today. Maybe in 20 years when capitalism and democracy have truly nurtured their now-growing manufacturing as it did to Japan's ascention in the world in the 80's and stamps out communism, then I'm willing to give it a shot. Until then, have fun swimming in polluted rivers or hiding your children and dogs from the government. Have fun with your filtered Internet and political activists dissapearing mysteriously in the night. Having lived in both countries as well, I'd pick the US over China any day of the year.

Japan has the strictest gun control in the world and has nearly zero gun crime. Yet Switzerland's government promotes gun control and has the highest per-capita of gun ownership and has similarly near-zero gun crime. This widly contrasting duality is a fine example that the lack or presence of inanimate objects is not the cause of crime, but rather an issue of society.

Switzerland is also a country who always remains neutral in War conflicts......and I think you are wrong about how many guns Switzerland has. Japan was a victim to the biggest terrorist act committed by the murdering American Empire.....they realized; own a gun for what! Who needs guns when you can wipe out entire populations with a single push of a button.

.....And yet you think it is ok to hogtie me, and force me to pay my taxes to a military machine I disagree with....is not an infringment upon my rights?

I don't agree with the military going about bombing countries for political reasons either so what's your point? We're channeling billions of dollars into the War on Drugs in Central America and ruining their countries in the process. I don't agree either. The government wastes billions of dollars a year on pork that I don't support. This new stimulus bill Obama passed is about 40% pork that goes to government expansion/payraises/infrastructure isntead of helping the common American worker as it promised. I didn't support it either but I was forced to endure. Oh so you do agree that there is an American problem!

You admit you were forced to endure. Now think about that statement. Forced is what? Slavery, committing acts you don't want to do. Paying money to an gulag of government officials to committ more war crimes, and you idly do nothing, accept being forced to do it. Not me....I left......Because I know Freedom to America only means the space inside a barrel of a gun.....to project weapon superiority over not only its own people but the entire world....there is no person or idea that rejects those insane ideas......and is why I cherish the idea of a Nonviolent Society...it is the dream....yours is a nightmare....a paranoid mental patient....unable to face true reality....because of lurking assassins around every shadow.

I don't support the insanity of people like the Westboro Baptist Church, but they're covered under free speech guaranteed by the Constitution. Are you to expect that you can live the entirety of your life with everything going the way YOU want it? The Second Amendment has nothing to do with wasteful military spending and bombing other countries over fleeting ideological differences between politicians.......The Constitution is a document of hypocrisy. You either follow the Constitution or the New Testament....you can not serve two masters...I say the same.....Are you to expect you can live the entirety of your life with everything going the way YOU want it? Certainly you have your way, but I don't? And you think that is fair to infringe on my human rights? And just whom have I hurt or threatened to take away my rights? I never shot anybody, never robbed anyone, love my wife and support my kids. In fact I consider myself a viable and trustworthy member of society....someone people can rely on....yet I am run out of my own country....because I am no hypocrite.

....I would not deprive a woman the chance to stop a rapists. But certainly rapists don't think they will not get caught from evidence from their body fluids. or things that naturally occur at a crime scene....They think they will not be caught?

Ah so you offer no rebuttal to a woman having the rights of self-defense? If you don't deprive a woman the right to stop a rapist, then you're supporting the right of self-defense which indirectly supports gun rights. Which is it? You conveniently skirt answering the question directly and say we should depend on forensic evidence can be used to track the rapist afterward. Plenty of rapists kill their victims after their deed. I guess you don't care because you don't have a vagina?

......Absolutely not...as long as she is not using a gun in shooting people. They do have taser's, and there are many forms of self protection...if indeed rape is the so called assault you advocate...But like I said...and you should read again my original answer. Did you know.. Rapists can also be a husband and wife affair....domestic violence....an American daily activitiy....Kill everyone in the family, then yourself....because the God of Gun says so....... Here everyone have a gun....Perhaps you should start giving them away freely like you give away free condoms.

You see your arguments are surface notes, not true reality..because any woman would gun down any guy because she didn't like him...and accuse him of rape....

Wow, do you really think all women are as deceiving and twisted as your own worldview of women? You seriously have some issues. Did you have a bad relationship with your mother? Are you the type that think every woman is out to get your money? Guns are legal in the US, yet in reality what you propose almost never happens. Where is your proof?

......I know the reality of America and its art of deception, and lies. You do too, so don't play games here. I wasn't born yesterday. Yeah just like Building 7 fell without a plane hitting it on 911... where is your proof the government did not do this?

And the elderly is really like giving a gun to a kid isn't it? Hey give a gun to every man and woman in a Nursing Home, and see how many nurses stay there working.

Not every old person is some senile, drooling, wrinkled bag of skin. Your viewpoint that the elderly are worthless members of society is also sickening. There are plenty of healthy individuals over the age of 60 that live on their own, and plenty of them own firearms. How many of them are killing nurses or themselves?

.....I never said they were worthless....That is your point. I ask you when the time comes are they taking their fire arm to the nursing home? And it is you who claim people are elderly at age of 60. Not me...... By all means have all the guns you want slave....Your so called popularity is like flies on shit.

As someone that claims to proport peace, non-violence, and goodwill towards mankind, you really have some despicable views of women and the elderly. A very sexist and elitist viewpoint on equal members of society...........There you go again imposing your own brand of American bullshit. Because I stand up against guns and violence I am now viewed as someone who despises the elderly and women...Boy you got a lot of nerve...............Here have a GUN....Nice doggy...

Thanks I advocate Nonviolence all the time. And clearly you are of the illusion that violence stops violence....It does not. It only festers more get even strategies.

Do you call police if there is a crime? If so, you advocate violence-by-proxy, that you are too cowardly to stop crime yourself and you'd have a policeman apply violence to a criminal instead of getting your own hands soiled and dirty.

.....No I don't call the Police...because I know the Police are just as criminal. You see it is not honest people who are in charge of our Justice System they are just bigger crooks and murderers. It is gang warfare in Politics...One group against the other... The one who has the ability to do the most outrageous crime to humanity wins the ability to force people into more servitude...by forcing us to pay for their prisons, and military machines....while they get away with killing millions of innocent people. It's a world track record of achievement.....You Americans still have not admitted your terrorist crimes on Japan targeting innocent people....And in Iraq you killed even more people than in Japan. Like you have any concious to that? No...give everyone a gun......Thats the American Way....Kill first....and well what's the sense in asking questions?

If you're a true advocate of nonviolence, then you are nothing more than a lamb looking for any butcher that'd have you. By allowing criminals to prey upon you is a personal choice that you have every right to make, but a selfish one ultimately. That criminal is going to finish with you and find another victim. Every victim that criminal strikes after you is going to be on your conscience because you refused to take action against someone who preys on humanity's kindness and let him continue on his merry way instead of taking action.

.....I am going to try and ask the guy or girl why rob me? Here I will give it to you...here's the whole world you can steal it....Have at it. What not enough for you? I know that there are selfish people in the world who do not help other people. Why isn't that a crime? Why aren't sanctions crimes? They kill innocent people. You allow the American Superiority BS cloud real human being values. Why isn't unemployment a crime?

The idea that true nonviolence works is as silly as claiming true capitalism, true communism, or true any philosophy/religion/government/commerce system works 100%. There is no 100% fully functional system out there without it's flaws.

Well isn't that an interesting admission.........Funny thing when you look at the USA.......it appears that Violence is the American Way...100% nonstop MURDER.......Get Your GUN TODAY.

Rev.Jermano

djermano

at 17:30 on March 2nd, 2009

.....Yes people who own guns are criminals....That is why so much crime is in the USA. How about using your many website examples and compare the crime in the USA. I wonder what School Yard is next? How many more David Koresh's and Tim McVeighs are coming? By all means they deserve guns too.......to justify the 223 million gun owners in the USA. America is a Prison Yard....and the people are so called security guards.....I don't call that society....I call it terror in the waiting..

It is amazing that the USA is financially in free fall at the moment. You morons don't even know the value of a house? You have no concept that your Prisons expansion is because of the lack of education expansion? And the education you advocate is more GUN? So they have to build more Prisons? You are a real comedian!

UK crime is not skyrocketing....
UK crime has not skyrocketed.

Rejecting reality does not make it illusion. It just makes you someone that doesn't seek the truth, but would rather keep your own comfortable worldview regardless of merit. Here is a crawl of articles that just turn up on the first two pages of Google. Try providing a counterargument next time instead of rants about nuclear bombs which have nothing to do with assault weapons.

.....No you read too much propaganda...about the reason to have guns...instead of thinking of the reason to not have them....That is the American thinking hangup. What's the Crime for the day today? Got to sell that news you know.

Fourfold rise in gun crime since Dunblane
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2426552.ece

U.K. Violent Crime Rises
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=agceOIMf5nfc&refer=uk

Handgun crime 'up' despite ban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

Capital gun crime rises by 50 per cent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/capital-gun-crime-rises-by-50-per-cent-524068.html

Gun crime soars by 35%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm

Violent crime figures rise by 12%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3914289.stm

Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Burglaries and knife robberies up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7844455.stm

Gun Control Isn't Crime Control.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1

Which results in:

UK is knife crime capital - Times Online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1626691.ece

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

UK knife crime figures, 2007/08
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/knifecrime

Watch the Met police's anti-knife crime ad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2008/sep/01/advertising.knifecrime

eBay bans trade in knives in UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7879701.stm

Pub glass ban faces legal fight
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5037322.stm

Final phase of Glasgow glass ban is launched
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-14339674.html

Yup! Typical America BS....pulling eveything out of the kitchen drawer to make excuses to why they need a gun... Hey use the sink while you're at it......How about your shoe?

Rev. Jermano

bnbrkr (not verified)

at 07:21 on March 5th, 2009

darn right. these weapons kill people and they are fun to shoot too.they would not be fun to shoot at someone.the odds that i would ever fire that weapon at an intruder are non existent i hope it never happens.my weapon of choice would be my pistol.which they will also ban in the new legislation where people cant buy those either.dont take away my guns and not get the criminals guns and the terrorists guns and weapons. we are not safe from anyone without the ability of civilian patriots to defend this country and themselves.the ban will not stop illegal guns from coming in to this country or being used in crimes.there could always be earthquakes and disasters that require a gun to defend yourself and your family from people who were not prepared for it and desparate.you cant depend on the government for that protection or to feed you and give you medicine if something bad happened.you still have to have the good sense to be prepared yourself for anything.

bnbrkr (not verified)

at 07:29 on March 5th, 2009

oh and djermano if today everyone was going to destroy all the guns in the entire world i will throw mine in the pile too.i still got a bow and arrow i can use to shoot bambi and eat if i had too

djermano

at 15:58 on March 5th, 2009

What's the bambi jab about? I like chicken and rice.....You make it sound like we still live during the caveman days.

And your natural disaster comment is pretty ridiculous...One only needs to remember Katrina...and how the US military the guys who were suppose to protect were shooting the people....

Rev.

bnbrkr (not verified)

at 12:31 on March 6th, 2009

uh think you made my point for me on the natural disaster issue.and if you cant go to the store to buy your chicken because an earthquake happened you will probably have to find one alive and slaughter it yourself.like the cavemen did.or bring it to me ill wring it's neck for you if you aint got the stomach for it.long as i get some of it.see a lot of people don't realize that chicken you buy at the store used to be alive it had a beak and feathers and everything.someone had to kill it so you could eat it.probably those guys you see on the gieco commercials

djermano

at 18:15 on March 6th, 2009

Yeah I can see you shooting at the military Hero.

And stop playing games with your chicken. You think I am some ignorant fool? I don't need to hear your Bambi remarks, or your idea I have no idea what the hell life is about... You gun loving nit wits are not the answer......so stop pushing it down our throats.

Rev.

bnbrkr (not verified)

at 22:34 on March 6th, 2009

i am not pushing anything down your throat i said if all the guns are going away and it would fix this messed up world i would give mine up too.and i am not saying i would shoot the military hero i mean if whoever got shot by them wasn't being stupid they would still be here.there is a whole lot more out there other than guns that cause bigger problems.

djermano

at 16:22 on March 7th, 2009

Oh.....well I did see that......and you know I write things too....that people just never take into account starting a new view in the topic without digesting the present writ. Think maybe if we didn't spend so much money on the military.....it could have been used to keep the Dikes in good repair? Could have been used for better rescue efforts, and rebuilding? They are still rebuilding after Katrina....... Houses that no one can figure what they are really worth. We spend more money on the military than it is worth even using. They are all in my opinion welfare free loaders disquised as guards who are always caught sleeping on the job.

Rev

bnbrkr (not verified)

at 19:47 on March 7th, 2009

if we were not still screwing around in iraq those guys could have been down there too helping evacuate rescue feed shelter and that doesnt require a gun either seems we are always in another country "helping" them i was initially wanting them to go to iraq but they did not find what they said was there.what a bunch of crap also if there were people down there where katrina hit that wanted to stay where they were at and they made them leave that was crap too