Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/6/2004 11:02:54 PM EST
House leaders plan to hold a vote on the day the ban expires on legislation introduced by Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), which would repeal the Washington, D.C., firearms ban and eliminate “criminal penalties for possessing an unregistered firearm.” The legislation has 226 bipartisan co-sponsors, more than necessary to ensure passage.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 11:03:45 PM EST
no

S.O.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 11:10:05 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 11:10:55 PM EST
Nope, never.

The evidence has been there for anyone to see for years. It's about CONTROL, not about Gun Control. Look at England and the Aussies. As soon as the bans went into effect, crime rates shot through the roof. Their response? "Oh, these laws don't go far enough, we need more-better-different ones to solve the problem."

Assmunches all of them. Pols would rather see citizens DIE rather than admit that what they've done DOESN'T WORK. After all, there will be other voters given the pols social and welfare programs make it a sure thing that they will keep breeding like rabbits.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 11:11:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
They already know that guns prevent crime. They don't care.

They also know that guns prevent abusive governments. THAT is why they want to ban them.



Exactly
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 11:11:32 PM EST
Where is the option for "Not even if you held a gun to their head?"
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 11:15:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
Where is the option for "Not even if you held a gun to their head?"



As fun as that may be, they would only laugh as you to shot them and furthered their cause.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 11:16:07 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 11:27:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/6/2004 11:28:24 PM EST by sonofbp]
The one that gets me is all the pols/activists that carry handguns and have armed bodyguards yet they blame crime on guns. WTF?
They only believe in laws that they can conveniently exempt themselves from.
Unless its a pay raise.

Honestly the Fed Gov should only be responsible for 3 things:

1)Military(including border security)
2)Interstate commerce & cooperation.(Money, highways, national forrests, etc.)
3)Foriegn policy.(When fails see #1)
That would make the President happy.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 11:42:45 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/7/2004 4:54:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
You could use a firearm to save an anti's life and they'd STILL want them banned.



You ain't kidding. A couple of years back, I remember reading about a woman around here who was attacked in a grocery store. A CCW holder drew her weapon, and the attacker stopped the attack and was arrested. The person who was attacked later said she had been more afraid of the gun than the person that attacked her!
Link Posted: 9/7/2004 7:33:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/7/2004 7:33:57 AM EST by sonofbp]

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:
[You ain't kidding. A couple of years back, I remember reading about a woman around here who was attacked in a grocery store. A CCW holder drew her weapon, and the attacker stopped the attack and was arrested. The person who was attacked later said she had been more afraid of the gun than the person that attacked her!



That is wrong on so many levels.
If that woman(CCW holder) had pulled out a badge after the fact the lady would be leading a cherity drive for the local PD.
Link Posted: 9/7/2004 7:39:51 AM EST
Not a fucking chance. Not a Fucking chance in hell
Link Posted: 9/7/2004 7:43:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
You could use a firearm to save an anti's life and they'd STILL want them banned.



You ain't kidding. A couple of years back, I remember reading about a woman around here who was attacked in a grocery store. A CCW holder drew her weapon, and the attacker stopped the attack and was arrested. The person who was attacked later said she had been more afraid of the gun than the person that attacked her!



Yeah, I remember that! People are more scare of inanimate objects that bad people.
Link Posted: 9/7/2004 7:44:04 AM EST
For most of them it isn't about reducing crime at all.

It is about CONTROL.

Reducing Crime, or Common Sense Gun Safety, etc are the terms used to get the masses to buy off on freedom infractions.
Link Posted: 9/7/2004 7:53:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By jchewie:
For most of them it isn't about reducing crime at all.

It is about CONTROL.

Reducing Crime, or Common Sense Gun Safety, etc are the terms used to get the masses to buy off on freedom infractions.




It's all about Social Engineering.
They're trying to create the Socialist-Sheeple Paradise that the European Socialists couldn't succeed in creating.

I've dealt with plenty of anti's over the years and had to listen to their BS.
Even after telling them how CCW has saved my a$$ in a couple muggings, they still think all guns should be confiscated.

If I saw one of them getting mugged, I'd wave and keep walking.

CKMorley
Link Posted: 9/7/2004 12:58:32 PM EST
Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens has already been proven to lower crime. They didn't get it then, and they won't get it know. They prefer to assume that all guns are bad because some bad people use them.
Link Posted: 9/7/2004 1:10:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
They already know that guns prevent crime. They don't care.

They also know that guns prevent abusive governments. THAT is why they want to ban them.



+1
Link Posted: 9/7/2004 1:19:02 PM EST
it'll never pass the senate so why even bother?
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:35:40 AM EST
All I have to do is read about other states and keep telling myself I will never move out of AZ.
Some states are running to socialism and it will not be pritty when it fails.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:42:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
They already know that guns prevent crime. They don't care.

They also know that guns prevent abusive governments. THAT is why they want to ban them.



And the WINNER is......................
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:05:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By Coolio:

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
They already know that guns prevent crime. They don't care.

They also know that guns prevent abusive governments. THAT is why they want to ban them.



And the WINNER is......................


Unfortunately, you guys could not be more correct.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:15:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
They already know that guns prevent crime. They don't care.

They also know that guns prevent abusive governments. THAT is why they want to ban them.



Exactly. Their power is the only thing that matters to them. They'd sooner see every last one of us die then sacrifice the slightest bit of their power.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 6:32:44 AM EST

If crime drops by 90% in D.C. will the anti-gunners finaly get it?


No. They don't let facts get in the way of their emotions.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 8:32:11 AM EST
Nope.

The most rabid anti-gunners don't care about logic. Their desire to ban guns is completely based on emotion.

It doesn't matter how many times you prove them wrong or show them actual numbers to dispute their claims, they will always think that banning guns is the right thing to do.

I think that many of them actually think that they are helping. Showing them the light is the hard part.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:02:57 AM EST
What was that quote?

"Gun control isn't about guns; it's about control."
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:43:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mall-Ninja:
What was that quote?

"Gun control isn't about guns; it's about control."


Don't know who said it first, but it could not be more correct.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 10:47:16 PM EST
screw them all
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 11:03:25 PM EST
It just aint about crime for them... its about power.


Too bad on a college campus I have to deal with so many "Just get rid of guns" people...

One guy, TODAY in fact, said "Just ban them... they are a symbol of violence and oppression".

Grrrrr


- BG
Top Top